Content uploaded by Diego Garate
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Diego Garate on Dec 29, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
En Mouvement / On the Move / In Bewegung
Mobilités des hommes, des objets et des idées pendant le Paléolithique supérieur européen
Mobility of people, objects and ideas during the European Upper Paleolithic
Mobilität von Menschen, Objekten und Ideen im europäischen Jungpaläolithikum
Actes de la séance commune de la Société préhistorique française et la
Hugo Obermaier-Gesellschaft à Strasbourg (16 - 17 mai 2019)
Textes publiés sous la direction de
Ludovic Mevel, Mara-Julia Weber et Andreas Maier
Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2021
(Séances de la Société préhistorique française, 17), p. 173-194
www.prehistoire.org
ISSN : 2263-3847 – ISBN : 2-913745-86-5 (en ligne)
Back to the wall: an approach to the reuse of symbolic
underground spaces during the Late Upper Palaeolithic
on the Bay of Biscay seaboard
Retour aux parois : une approche de la réutilisation d’espaces
souterrains symboliques au Paléolithique supérieur tardif sur
le versant du golfe de Gascogne
Zurück zur Wand: Eine Annäherung an die wiederholte Nutzung
symbo lischer unterirdischer Räume während des späten
Jungpaläolithikums an der Küste des Golfs von Biskaya
Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
Abstract: The symbolic use of the underground landscape is one of the most relevant aspects of the behaviour of Upper Palaeolithic
societies in Europe. Currently available archaeological data clearly indicate the development of symbolic activities inside the caves
from the Aurignacian, with Chauvet as the best example. This symbolic use became generalized until its most widespread levels at
the end of the Upper Palaeolithic period, during the Middle Magdalenian. Besides, some of these caves were used during several
periods in the Upper Palaeolithic. At the same time, even though the presence of graphic palimpsests was noted from the beginning
of research in cave art, the recurrent use of caves for symbolic purposes, basically parietal art, in dierent periods during the Upper
Palaeolithic has received the most interest only after the introduction of 14C-AMS analyses of charcoal paintings. Thus, until now, the
reuse of caves for symbolic purposes, especially rock art, has scarcely been studied. The main goal of the present study is therefore to
construct a preliminary overview of the phenomenon in order to establish dierences and/or similarities in the reutilisation patterns.
The methodology to identify the reuse of caves art in the area of study has been based on the critical re-evaluation of existing informa-
tion. Previous studies have been partial, mostly because they were restricted to specic geographical areas. In this way, a recurrence
has been observed in the use of these symbolic spaces which is especially striking in the central/western Cantabrian region, during the
whole period, in a way that is not detected in other regions. This is a very signicant observation because it is evidence for a shared
form of behaviour regarding graphic codes in human groups that followed one another over time and are archaeologically represented
by very dierent technocomplexes.
Keywords: Cave art, Symbolism, Re-use, Europe, Magdalenian.
Résumé : L’appropriation symbolique des paysages souterrains est l’un des comportements les plus marquants de l’Homo sapiens pen-
dant le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. L’incursion à l’intérieur des grottes à des ns symboliques semble être lié à de rares actes
funéraires des populations néandertaliennes et des certaines activités ponctuelles comme celles documentées dans la grotte de Bruniquel.
Les données archéologiques actuellement disponibles indiquent clairement le développement d’activités symboliques à l’intérieur des
grottes depuis l’époque aurignacienne, avec la grotte Chauvet comme meilleur exemple. Ce processus se généralisera jusqu’à atteindre
son paroxysme vers la n du Paléolithique supérieur, au cours du Magdalénien moyen. Dans certaines régions, les grottes demeurent
la principale source d’information pour appréhender l’organisation des sociétés paléolithiques en raison des problèmes de conserva-
tion des habitats de plein air. Elles ont en eet été occupées, voire habitées, et utilisées pour diérentes fonctions selon des chronolo-
gies plus ou moins longues. D’ailleurs, certaines d’entre elles ont été occupées pendant plusieurs périodes, continues ou non, pendant
le Paléolithique supérieur. C’est la raison pour laquelle certains spécialistes ont proposé l’idée que certains de ces sites aient eu le statut
de « sites d’agrégations », comme l’illustre le cas de la grotte d’Altamira. Cette même idée a également été évoquée sous le nom de
« super sites » pour certaines grottes pyrénéennes comme Isturitz ou le Mas d’Azil. Si la présence de palimpseste graphique dans l’art ru-
pestre a été mise en évidence depuis les prémices des recherches dans ces contextes, l’utilisation récurrente de grottes à des ns symboliques
et artistique a été véritablement démontrée avec le développement des analyses 14C-AMS sur les peintures réalisées au fusain. Pourtant,
jusqu’à présent, la réappropriation de grottes à des ns symboliques n’a guère été un véritable objet d’étude. Seules les grottes de Cantabrie
occidentale et centrale ont été évaluées de manière conjointe dans cette perspective, alors que dans d’autres secteurs elles ont été considérées
individuellement. Récemment, à travers nos recherches dans l’est de la Cantabrie et dans les Pyrénées occidentales, nous avons détecté
l’existence de trois sites qui présentaient des récurrences graphiques : les sites d’Aitzbitarte IV et d’Aitzbitarte V, étaient des ensembles d’art
rupestre inconnus. Erberua était pour sa part déjà connu, mais nos travaux ont permis la réinterprétation de certaines gravures.
En raison de ces nouveaux indices et dans le but de parvenir à avoir une vision d’ensemble de ce comportement culturel à la n du
Paléolithique supérieur, nous avons répertorié et caractérisé tous les sites d’art rupestre qui présentait une réutilisation des parois en
réalisant une réévaluation critique des informations publiées et la discussion de modèles pour le bassin versant du golfe de Gascogne.
L’objectif principal de la présente étude était de proposer un premier aperçu de ces phénomènes et de trouver des diérences et/ou des
similitudes dans les schémas de réappropriation des parois. Au nal, nous avons observé une récurrence de ces espaces symboliques qui
est particulièrement frappante dans la région de Cantabrie centrale/occidentale, pendant tout le Paléolithique supérieur. Ces résultats
permettent de mettre en évidence un comportement partagé pour des codes graphiques par des groupes humains qui se succèdent dans
le temps, en transcendant les technocomplexes auxquelles ils appartiennent.
L’enquête actuelle s’est limitée à un sujet principal – la distribution géographique et spatiale – et reste préliminaire en raison de notre
objectif principal qui était d’obtenir une vue d’ensemble à l’échelle de l’Europe occidentale. Dans tous les cas, des analyses plus
approfondies devront être eectuées pour préciser les interactions entre les diérentes phases de décors, pour dénir les schémas de
construction graphique de l’ensemble et bien sûr, pour expliquer les diérences mises en évidence.
Mots-clés : Grotte ornée, Symbolisme, Réutilisation, Europe, Magdalénien.
Zusammenfassung: Die symbolische Nutzung unterirdischer Landschaften ist einer der relevantesten Verhaltensaspekte jung-
paläolithischer Gesellschaften in Europa. Die zurzeit verfügbaren archäologischen Daten zeigen deutlich die Entwicklung sym-
bolischer Aktivitäten in Höhlen seit dem Aurignacien, mit der Chauvet-Höhle als bestem Beispiel. Diese Art der symbolischen
Nutzung erfuhr immer weitere Verbreitung bis zu ihrem Höhepunkt gegen Ende des Jungpaläolithikums, während des Mittleren
Magdalénien. Außerdem wurden einige dieser Höhlen zu mehreren Zeitpunkten während des Jungpaläolithikums genutzt. Wenn-
gleich Palimpseste bei Höhlenkunst von Beginn der Untersuchungen an beschrieben wurden, wuchs das Interesse an der wieder-
holten Nutzung von Höhlen für symbolische Zwecke, hauptsächlich an Wandkunst, zu verschiedenen jungpaläolithischen Epochen
erst nach der Einführung von 14C-AMS-Analysen an Holzkohle-Zeichnungen. Bislang wurde die Wiederverwendung von Höhlen zu
symbolischen Zwecken, insbesondere Felskunst, kaum untersucht. Das Ziel dieser Studie ist es daher, einen vorläugen Überblick
über das Phänomen zu geben, um Unterschiede und/oder Gemeinsamkeiten in den Wiederverwendungsmustern herausstellen zu
können. Die Methode zur Erkennung der Wiederverwendung von Höhlenkunst im Untersuchungsgebiet basiert auf der kritischen
Neubewertung der vorhandenen Informationen. Bisherige Studien betrachteten meist nur einen spezischen geographischen Raum
und waren daher partieller Natur. Auf diese Weise konnte eine wiederholte Nutzung symbolischer Plätze festgestellt werden, die
sich in einer besonders hohen Intensität während des gesamten Untersuchungszeitraumes in der zentralen/westlichen kantabrischen
Region abzeichnet, wie sie in keiner anderen Region erkannt wurde. Dies ist eine signikante Beobachtung, da sie beweist, dass
zeitlich aufeinanderfolgende Menschengruppen, die archäologisch durch sehr unterschiedliche Technokomplexe repräsentiert sind, eine
geteilte Art des Verhaltens in Bezug auf graphische Kodierung hatten.
Schlüsselwörter: Höhlenkunst, Symbolismus, Wiederholte Nutzung, Europa, Magdalénien.
Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
174
Back to the wall 175
INTRODUCTION
The symbolic appropriation of the subterranean
landscape is one of the most signicant aspects of
Homo sapiens behaviour among Upper Palaeolithic so-
cieties in Europe. Several authors have claimed that it
is one of the distinctive features of ‘modern behaviour’
in those human groups (Mithen, 1996; Mellars, 2004;
Zilhão, 2007). In fact, it is considered a milestone for hu-
mankind, and a large number of these sites, especially in
Spain and France, have been designated World Heritage
by UNESCO.
Earlier incursions inside caves for symbolic purpos-
es seem to be represented by a few Neanderthal burials
(Pettitt, 2002) and some occasional and indeterminate
activities only in Bruniquel Cave (Jaubert et al., 2016).
Recent Uranium-series dating results of calcite crusts
in spatial relationship with rock art have been pub-
lished for the Spanish caves of Ardales, Maltravieso and
La Pasiega (Homann et al., 2018a), and these coincide
with a Neanderthal occupation of the territory. How-
ever, several specialists doubted the results (Pearce and
Bonneau, 2018; Aubert et al., 2018a; Slimak et al., 2018;
White et al., 2019), which has motivated an interesting
discussion (Homann et al., 2018b, 2018c and 2019). In
previous chronologies, such other evidence as the ‘votive’
hand-axe from the Sima de los Huesos (Pit of the Bones)
at Atapuerca has been proposed for archaic Neanderthals
(Arsuaga et al., 2014), although the intentionality of this
deposit has not been conrmed yet (Aranburu et al., 2017).
In contrast, currently available archaeological data
clearly indicate the development of symbolic activities
inside caves from the Upper Palaeolithic Aurignacian on-
wards (Clottes [ed.], 2001; Pike et al., 2012), even taking
into account all the limitations concerning the input of
this kind of evidence in the construction of cultural tax-
onomy (Reynolds and Riede, 2019). This behaviour then
became increasingly common until reaching its greatest
development – in terms of quantity – at the end of the
Upper Palaeolithic, in the Middle Magdalenian (Clottes,
2012a). The cave of Chauvet (Ardèche, France) has con-
tributed to this early art with a dozen of direct and more
than a hundred of indirect datings obtained by dierent
methods (Quiles et al., 2016), indicating human activities
during the Aurignacian and also the Gravettian. Although
some researchers question the validity of the radiometric
datings and the claims for a stylistic comparison and
evaluation of palaeontological and stratigraphic evidence
(Züchner, 1996; Pettitt, 2008; Pettitt et al., 2009; Combier
and Jouve, 2014; Pettitt and Bahn, 2015), all doubts have
been countered with stylistic comparisons (e.g. Tosello
and Fritz, 2005; Sauvet et al., 2008), or by geomorpho-
logical insights, because the entrance of Chauvet started
collapsing since 29 ka until the total sealing of the cave
21 ka ago (Sadier et al., 2012). There is a similar situa-
tion concerning the half-dozen U/Th Aurignacian dates
obtained in Castillo, Altamira, and Tito Bustillo (Pike et
al., 2012), which were also criticized by some specialists
(Bednarik, 2012; Clottes, 2012b; Pons-Branchu et al.,
2014; Sauvet et al., 2017) but defended by the initial re-
searchers (Pike et al., 2017).
In fact, caves are the main source of information for
the reconstruction of Palaeolithic societies because of
preservation conditions and because they were inhabit-
ed and used under dierent functional aspects (Utrilla,
1994; Olive, 2004). Some of these caves were occupied,
continuously or not, during several periods during the
Upper Palaeolithic. Consequently, some specialists have
proposed the idea of ‘aggregation sites’ for those caves
where the archaeological record is extremely rich for one
or several periods. First applied to Altamira Cave (Can-
tabria, Spain; Conkey, 1980 and 1992), the idea has also
been posited under the term of ‘super sites’ for some
Pyrenean caves, like Isturitz (Pyrénées Atlantiques,
France) or Mas d’Azil (Ariège, France; Bahn, 1982). This
idea has been developed mostly in the Cantabrian region
by analyzing the social geographies of Palaeolithic groups
(Moure, 1994; Utrilla, 1994; Utrilla and Martínez-Bea,
2008; De La Rasilla and Duarte, 2018), although a rein-
terpretation has been proposed for Isturitz (Rivero, 2014).
While the presence of graphic palimpsests in cave art
was noted from the beginning of research (e.g. Alcalde
del Río et al., 1911), the recurrent use of caves for sym-
bolic purposes, basically parietal art, in dierent periods
throughout the Upper Palaeolithic is an aspect that has
been addressed in most detail only after the introduction
of 14C-AMS analyses of charcoal paintings (Valladas et
al., 2013). There is a supposed long tradition of deco-
rated caves based on the radiocarbon dates for sites like
Cougnac (Lot, France) and Cosquer (Bouches du Rhône,
France; Lorblanchet, 1994a; Valladas et al., 2017), the
suggested repainting on the same wall at Niaux (Ariège,
France; Clottes et al., 1992), or even retouching the
same gures at Castillo (Cantabria, Spain; Valladas et
al., 2001) again during the Magdalenian. However, the
validity of most of these dates was later criticized be-
cause of possible contamination processes during sam-
pling and analysis (Sauvet, 2004). On the other hand, the
wall-stratigraphic superimpositions of gures in dierent
styles have also been used to demonstrate spatial recur-
rence of symbolic activities inside the caves. In the Can-
tabrian region this phenomenon was observed especially
in Altamira and Castillo caves from the rst moments of
research (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911), and the gures
were attributed rst to the Early Upper Palaeolithic (i.e.
Gravettian), to its middle phases (i.e. Solutrean and Low-
er Magdalenian) and nally to the Middle Magdalenian
(Moure, 1994). The same idea has been applied to a large
number of caves, including Peña Candamo, Llonín, Tito
Bustillo, Pasiega, and La Garma, within a more extended
chronology (González-Sainz, 2004). At the same time,
a model of human use of the interior of the caves was
proposed for the western Cantabrian sites of Llonín,
Tito Bustillo, Lloseta, and Buxu (Fortea, 2007). These
caves were apparently explored and decorated in all their
sectors during the Gravettian, and then the main walls
were decorated again in the Magdalenian, superimposing
176 Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
the ‘new’ gures on the ‘older’ ones, creating a complex
palimpsest. This model has also been applied for the cen-
tral Cantabrian caves of Altamira, Pasiega, Castillo, and
La Garma (Corchón et al., 2012). Such recurrent graphic
activities have been assessed for just a few caves in the
Pyrenees: Trois Frères, and Le Portel (Clottes, 1989;
Jaubert, 2008), while this phenomenon seems to be even
scarcer in the Dordogne , where it is basically limited to
La Mouthe (Breuil, 1952), and Font-de-Gaume (Plassard,
2006). Incursions into the caves for other kinds of sym-
bolic activities, like burials or object deposits (Medina-
Alcaide et al., 2018), seem to have been more infrequent
and so far no evidence of recurrence has been detected.
More recently, during our research survey in the east-
ern Cantabrian region and the western Pyrenees, graphic
recurrence during the Upper Palaeolithic has been detect-
ed at three sites (Garate, 2018). In the cases of Aitzbitarte
IV (Garate et al., 2020a) and Aitzbitarte V (Garate et al.,
2020b) these are previously unknown rock art ensembles,
while in the case of Erberua some of the already known
engravings were reinterpreted (Garate et al., 2020c).
These results are especially interesting because they con-
nect the Cantabrian and Pyrenean regions, also in view
of this specic phenomenon of the reutilization of cave
sectors for graphic activities.
Thus, until now, the re-appropriation of caves for
symbolic purposes, especially in reference to rock art,
has been studied very little. Only the western and central
Cantabrian caves have been considered as a whole in this
sense, while only individual ones in other regions have
been examined. In fact, the reuse of caves with symbolic
purposes can be related to the addition of new gures after
earlier one(s), on the same or other panels, in a short or
long chronological dimension (Lorblanchet, 1994a). In
the rst case, reuse is very dicult to detect due to the
low resolution of the dating methods, only the parietal
stratigraphy allows us to assess – indirectly – the time
scale. In the second case, the criteria are more numerous,
especially 14C and U/Th analysis, parietal stratigraphy
and stylistic comparison are to be mentioned.
As a consequence of new evidence and the lack of an
overview about this cultural behaviour involving the the
Middle/Upper Magdalenian reuse of caves decorated in
previous phases, all the cave art sites in the Bay of Biscay
with recurrent decoration through time have been identi-
ed and dened in this study in order to seek dierent or
similar patterns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The area of study has been restricted to the Bay of
Biscay seaboard, this is to say, to all the river basins
that discharge into the Atlantic along the Cantabrian and
the Landes coastlines (from the River Nalón in Asturias,
northern Spain, to the Loire in Brittany, western France).
This is the classical area for Palaeolithic cave art studies,
including the regions of the Cantabrian Mountains, the
Pyrenees, the Quercy, the Perigord, the Charente, and the
Loire. It is here where the continuous symbolic use of
caves during the Upper Palaeolithic was more common,
albeit not exclusive, or where it has been especially high-
lighted by research.
The methodology developed to identify the re-appro-
priation of cave art in the selected area has been based
on the critical re-examination of the existing information.
The reappraisal of all the Late Upper Palaeolithic deco-
rated ensembles starting with the literature has enabled a
global view for the mentioned area (table 1). Only caves
reused during the Middle/Upper Magdalenian, with pre-
vious decoration phases dated to the Aurignacian, Gravet-
tian, Solutrean, and/or Lower Magdalenian, were selected.
In the case of the Lower Magdalenian, there are some
sites where the dierentiation between one and another
technocomplex is so dicult (e.g. Altamira, Marsoulas,
Roc-aux-Sorciers, Cap Blanc, etc.) that they have to be
considered with caution. Recurrences between Middle
and Upper Magdalenian technocomplexes have been ex-
cluded because of the diculty in detecting dierences
(Rivero and Sauvet, 2014), likewise recurrences between
Early Upper Palaeolithic phases because that is not the
objective of the study.
The attribution to dierent phases referred to in the
literature is sometimes not well argued, and such sites
have been discarded from our analysis as explained be-
low (e.g., Lascaux, Pech Merle, Covarón, El Bosque,
Urdiales, Cullalvera, Lloseta, and Coimbre). In contrast,
some cases that have never been cited in this regard be-
fore (Bernifal, Combarelles I, Bourgnetou, and Erberua)
and our new discoveries (Aitzbitarte IV and V) have been
included, as mentioned above.
At Lascaux Cave (Dordogne, France) some specialists
distinguish several rock art phases, including a nal one
in the Middle Magdalenian (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965; Lor-
blanchet, 1994a), based on the presence of claviforms,
some frontal-view animals and the multiplication of the
legs of some horses. However, all these seem to be com-
patible with immediately previous decoration phases dur-
ing the Lower Magdalenian and Badegoulian. Likewise,
in the cave of Pech Merle (Quercy, France) three rock
art phases were identied originally, including one of the
middle Magdalenian (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965), but later
this opinion was substituted by a more homogeneous in-
terpretation of the record (Lorblanchet, 2010), discarding
any Magdalenian phases. Other sites, like Covarón (As-
turias, Spain), display deeply engraved lines at the out-
side of the cave which are attributed to the Early Upper
Palaeolithic, and red signs and black animals in the inner
galleries, dated to the Upper Magdalenian. The diachronic
interpretation of these two types of gures (Arias and
Pérez-Suárez, 1993) may not be totally justied since
this same combination appears in other nearby ensem-
bles, like El Bosque, which are considered synchronic
(Ruiz-Redondo and Garate, 2015), even though they are
located in completely dierent contexts, with the deep
spindle-shaped lines in the outer part of the caves and
Middle/Upper Magdalenian gures in the deep sectors.
177
Back to the wall
Cave Province, Country Occupation phases Decoration phases Recurrent art references
Aurignacian
Gravettian
Solutrean*
Lower Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian Aurignacian
Upper Magdalenian Gravettian
Solutrean*
Lower Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian
Solutrean Gravettian*
Lower Magdalenian Solutrean
Lower Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Gravettian Gravettian
Solutrean Solutrean
Badegoulian* Lower Magdalenian
Lower Magdalenian Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian
Gravettian *
Alcalde del Río et al., 1911; Breuil, 1952;
Jordá and Berenguer, 1954; Jordá, 1976;
Fortea, 1992 and 2000b; González-
Echegaray and González-Sainz, 1994
Middle Magdalenian González-Sainz, 2005a
Upper Magdalenian*
Post-Palaeolithic*
Gravettian Aurignacian
Solutrean Gravettian
Lower Magdalenian Solutrean
Lower Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian
Aurignacian Aurignacian*
Solutrean Gravettian
Lower Magdalenian Lower Magdalenian*
Middle Magdalenian* Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian
Solutrean* Gravettian
Breuil et al., 1913; De Balbín Behrmann
and González-Sainz, 1993
Lower Magdalenian* Solutrean Garate et al., 2019
Middle Magdalenian Lower Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Mousterian* Breuil et al., 1913;
Gravettian
Moure and González-Sainz, 2000;
González-Sainz, 2005b; Hoffmann et al.,
2018a
Solutrean
Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian
Aurignacian Aurignacian
Alcalde del Rio et al., 1911; Moure and
González-Sainz, 2000
Gravettian Gravettian
González-Sainz, 2005b;
Pike et al., 2012
Solutrean Solutrean
Badegoulian* Lower Magdalenian
Lower Magdalenian Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian
Post-Palaeolithic
Peña Candamo Asturias, Spain Unknown Fortea, 2000a; Corchón et al., 2017
Tito Bustillo Asturias, Spain Moure, 1994; Fortea, 2007; De Balbín
Behrmann et al., 2016; Pike et al., 2012
Breuil and Obermaier, 1935; Pike et al.,
2012; De Las Heras et al., 2013
Buxu Asturias, Spain Sauvet, 2015; Menéndez (ed.), 2016
Llonín Asturias, Spain Fortea et al., 2004
Pindal* Asturias, Spain Unknown
Altamira Cantabria, Spain
Hornos de la Peña Cantabria, Spain Alcalde del Rio et al., 1911; Rivero and
Garate, 2013
Pasiega A/B Cantabria, Spain
Pasiega C/D Cantabria, Spain Unknown
Castillo Cantabria, Spain
178 Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
Table 1 – Decorated caves with graphical recurrence during the Upper Palaeolithic in the Bay of Biscay (* see discussion of attribution).
Tableau 1 – Grottes ornées avec une récurrence graphique au Paléolithique supérieur dans le golfe de Gascogne (* pour les attribu-
tions discutées).
Tabelle 1 – Bilderhöhlen mit wiederholt auftretender graphischer Nutzung während des Jungpaläolithikums im Golf von Biskaya
(*siehe Diskussion der chronologischen Zuschreibung).
Cave Province, Country Occupation phases Decoration phases Recurrent art references
Gravettian
Lower Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Gravettian
Upper Magdalenian
Aurignacian Gravettian*
Solutrean Middle Magdalenian
Badegoulian*
Upper Magdalenian
Gravettian
Middle Magdalenian
Gravettian
Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian*
Gravettian
Middle Magdalenian
Gravettian
Middle Magdalenian
Aurignacian Gravettian*
Gravettian Middle Magdalenian
Solutrean Upper Magdalenian*
Badegoulian*
Lower Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian
Gravettian Gravettian
Lower Magdalenian Middle Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
(Enlène)
Gravettian Gravettian
Middle Magdalenian Middle Magdalenian*
Upper Magdalenian Upper Magdalenian
Gravettian*
Upper Magdalenian
Gravettian*
Middle Magdalenian
Aurignacian Gravettian
Solutrean Solutrean
Magdalenian Middle Magdalenian
Aurignacian Gravettian*
Solutrean Solutrean*
Magdalenian Lower Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian Aurignacian*
Upper Magdalenian Lower Magdalenian*
Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian
Middle Magdalenian
Upper Magdalenian*
Gravettian
Middle Magdalenian
Bernifal* Dordogne, France Upper Magdalenian* Plassard, 2006
Margot Mayenne, France Unknown Pigeaud et al., 2006
Font-de-Gaume Dordogne, France Capitan et al., 1924; Plassard, 2006
Combarelles I* Dordogne, France Capitan et al., 1924
Bourgnetou* Lot, France Unknown Lorblanchet, 1971
Mouthe, La Dordogne, France Breuil, 1952
Portel, Le Ariège, France Jaubert, 2008
Pergouset Lot, France Aurignacian Garate et al., 2020b
Mas d’Azil, Le* Ariège, France Le Guillou, 2017
Trois Frères, Les Ariège, France Bégouën and Breuil, 1958;
Jaubert, 2008
Gargas Supérieur
Hautes Pyrénées,
France Unknown Tosello et al., 2005
Tibiran
Hautes Pyrénées,
France Unknown Leroi-Gourhan, 1965
Aitzbitarte V Basque Country, Spain Unknown Garate et al., 2020c
Erberua Pyrénées Atlantiques,
France Unknown Garate et al., 2020b
Salitre Cantabria, Spain Uncertain Alcalde del Rio et al., 1911; Salazar et al.,
2019
Aitzbitarte IV* Basque Country, Spain Garate et al., 2020a
González-Sainz, 2003Garma, La Cantabria, Spain Middle Magdalenian
179
Back to the wall
In the caves of Urdiales and Cullalvera (Cantabria,
Spain) the situation is very similar; at rst, several phas-
es of decoration across the Upper Palaeolithic were de-
scribed, motivated by the presence of red animal gures
near the current entrances (Montes et al., 2005; Díaz
Casado and Astorqui, 2012), but subsequent studies ar-
gue for a more synchronic interpretation (Ruiz-Redon-
do, 2014) dated to the Middle/Upper Magdalenian. In
Lloseta (Asturias, Spain), where an important pre-Mag-
dalenian rock art ensemble is known, some diuse re-
mains of three doubtful black animals have been as-
signed to the Magdalenian (De Balbín Behrmann et al.,
2005). However, it is dicult to assess this attribution
because of their bad preservation. Finally, in the case
of Coimbre, at least two decoration phases have been
proposed, one of them previous to the Middle Magda-
lenian because of the presence of dierent engraving
techniques (García-Díez et al., 2017). It is dicult to
conrm this appreciation, because the stylistic conven-
tions in all the gures can be attributed to the Magdale-
nian, despite the dierent techniques used.
No diachronicity in the decoration phases has ever
been clearly identied at Bernifal and Combarelles I. In
the former case, motivated by the presence of the hand
negatives, a decorative phase previous to the Middle
Magdalenian has been discussed (Plassard, 2005), but
this idea was discarded later because of a supposed re-
lation between the handprints and a Magdalenian sketch
of a mammoth. In the latter cave, the rst research at-
tributed a rst decoration phase consisting of undened
black paintings to the Aurignacian (Capitan et al., 1924),
but this appreciation does not appear in later studies
(Leroi-Gourhan, 1965; Barrière, 1997). In both cases,
there are hand stencils (at least two in Bernifal and one
in Combarelles I). The same situation is detected in the
case of Bourgnetou (Lorblanchet, 1971), with a reindeer
stylistically attributed without any doubt to the middle
Magdalenian, as in the case of St. Eulalie (Lorblanchet,
2010), and a red handprint on another wall. The antiq-
uity of this second depiction has been discussed, and
it has been varyingly considered from being a fake to
a possible pre-Magdalenian representation (Lorblan-
chet, 1971). In absence of more consistent arguments
(like morphotypes of previous chronologies in animal
gures, or parietal strata), the presence of hand sten-
cils or prints, usually attributed to early phases of the
Upper Palaeolithic (Jaubert, 2008; Feruglio et al.,
2011; Floss and Ostheider, 2013) – or even the earliest
(Pettitt et al., 2015; García-Diez et al., 2015) –, should
be taken with caution in these cases, because Magdale-
nian artists are potential authors of them, as at Bedeil-
hac, where two hand prints are attributed to the Mag-
dalenian (Sauvet, 2007). In any case, in Bernifal there
may be some other archaic gures, like the horses No.
54 and No. 76 in the inventory of Plassard (2005), or the
black disc cloud (close to the hand stencils and in the
same colour), usually attributed to early Upper Palaeo-
lithic phases, as in Combe-Negre (Feruglio et al., 2007),
or Pech-Merle, Les Fieux, Cougnac, Les Merveilles,
Rocaudour, le Moulin de Laguenay, and le Travers de
Janoye (Lorblanchet, 2010). Also, the ‘relationship’ of
the hand stencils with the Magdalenian mammoth, pro-
posed by F. Plassard (2005), should be revised to verify
if there is any kind of superposition.
A critical evaluation of the existing literature about
the selected sites requires a classication of the dier-
ent chronological data available. This information can
be related to 14C-AMS direct dating results of the black
paintings (Peña Candamo, Tito Bustillo, Buxu, Llonín,
Pindal, Altamira, Pasiega C/D, Castillo, La Garma, Le
Portel), to U/Th indirect dating of calcite crust (Castillo,
Tito Bustillo, Altamira, Pasiega C), to parietal stratigra-
phy between gures in dierent styles (Peña Candamo,
Tito Bustillo, Llonín, Altamira, Pasiega A-B, Pasiega
C/D, Castillo), or to stylistic features (all sites).
Concerning the caves retained for this study of re-
peatedly used sites on the Bay of Biscay seaboard, it is
necessary to dierentiate the reliability of the chronolog-
ical information. Some sites provide meaningful chron-
ological data (14C, U/Th, parietal stratigraphy, and sty-
listic comparison) to support the idea of dierent phases
of decoration. This is the case for Peña Candamo, Tito
Bustillo, Llonín, Altamira, Castillo, and Pasiega C/D,
where all the types of chronological data are available.
On other occasions, stylistic analyses provide sucient
arguments to propose diachronic symbolic activities in-
side caves like El Buxu, Hornos de la Peña, Pasiega A/B,
Salitre, Aitzbitarte V, Erberua, Gargas Supérieur, Tibiran,
Les Trois Frères, Le Portel, and La Mouthe. Finally, there
is another group of caves where, although a diachronic
interpretation seems reliable, the stylistic resolution is not
precise enough to arm it without any kind of doubt,e.
g. at El Pindal, Font de Gaume, Combarelles I, Bernifal,
and especially Aitzbitarte IV, Le Mas d’Azil, Pergouset,
and Bourgnetou.
The nal total of 27 caves (6 of them doubtful) are
distributed in dierent regions around the Bay of Biscay.
The reutilisation of these caves as symbolic spaces may
have been quantitatively and qualitatively dierent in
each region. In order to examine this aspect in greater
depth below, the phenomena will be compared in terms
of their spatial distribution, insertion in previously deco-
rated caves, and magnitude compared to the rest of Later
Upper Palaeolithic cave art.
RESULTS
The area of the rivers that ow into the Bay of Biscay
constitute a very wide geographical space which en-
compasses very diverse landscapes. In relation to these
and the distribution of Palaeolithic parietal art, ve areas
have been dierentiated that correspond, to a large extent,
with those contemplated in historiography since the be-
ginning of research (g. 1).
180 Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
Fig. 1 – Location of cave art sites with Middle/Upper Magdalenian (black) and also previous decorative phases (white) in the Bay of
Biscay watershed: 1) Candamo; 2) Tito Bustillo; 3) El Buxu; 4) Llonín; 5) El Pindal; 6) Altamira; 7) Hornos de la Peña; 8) La Pasiega;
9) El Castillo; 10) El Salitre; 11) La Garma; 12) Aitzbitarte IV; 13) Aitzbitarte V; 14) Erberua; 15) Gargas Supérieur; 16) Tibiran;
17) Trois Frères; 18) Mas d’Azil; 19) Le Portel; 20) Pergouset; 21) Bourgnetou; 22) La Mouthe; 23) Bernifal; 24) Font-de-Gaume;
25) Les Combarelles; 26) Margot.
Fig. 1 – Localisation des sites d‘art rupestre avec phases du Magdalénien moyen / supérieur (noir) et aussi avec des phases antéri-
eures (blanc) dans le bassin versant du golfe de Gascogne : 1) Candamo ; 2) Tito Bustillo ; 3) El Buxu ; 4) Llonín ; 5) El Pindal ;
6) Altamira ; 7) Hornos de la Peña ; 8) La Pasiega ; 9) El Castillo ; 10) El Salitre ; 11) La Garma ; 12) Aitzbitarte IV ; 13) Aitzbitarte V ;
14) Erberua ; 15) Gargas Supérieur ; 16) Tibiran ; 17) Trois Frères ; 18) Mas d’Azil ; 19) Le Portel ; 20) Pergouset ; 21) Bourgnetou ;
22) La Mouthe ; 23) Bernifal ; 24) Font-de-Gaume ; 25) Les Combarelles ; 26) Margot.
Abb. 1 – Lage der Höhlenkunst-Fundstellen des Mittleren/Späten Magdalénien (schwarz) und vorheriger künstlerischer Phasen (weiß)
an der Küste des Golfs von Biskaya: 1) Candamo; 2) Tito Bustillo; 3) El Buxu; 4) Llonín; 5) El Pindal; 6) Altamira; 7) Hornos de
la Peña; 8) La Pasiega; 9) El Castillo; 10) El Salitre; 11) La Garma; 12) Aitzbitarte IV; 13) Aitzbitarte V; 14) Erberua; 15) Gargas
Supérieur; 16) Tibiran; 17) Trois Frères; 18) Mas d’Azil; 19) Le Portel; 20) Pergouset; 21) Bourgnetou; 22) La Mouthe; 23) Bernifal;
24) Font-de-Gaume; 25) Les Combarelles; 26) Margot.
Cantabrian region
The Cantabrian coast represents the area with the
highest density of caves decorated during the Upper
Palaeolithic in Europe. For the Middle/Upper Magda-
lenian a total of 40 caves have been counted, and 14 of
these also display previous phases of decoration (one
cave doubtful), while there are c. 130 sites with deco-
ration from previous phases only. That is, fewer than
two-thirds of the caves were decorated ex novo in the
region during the Magdalenian. In fact, for the Late
Upper Palaeolithic, there is a very marked polarization
between the central/western and eastern cave art ensem-
bles, with the two sectors separated by a ‘cave art void’
of 200 kilometres, between the Asón and Oka basins.
In the rst sector, between the rivers Nalón and Asón,
the percentage of reused caves rises to 41%. This con-
centration coincides with the distribution of the striated
hinds of the Cantabrian lower Magdalenian (Rivero et
al., 2019). For the second sector, we can only certify
the symbolic reuse of the underground space in the case
of Aitzbitarte V, and perhaps also Aitzbitarte IV, while
the remaining nine cases can just be attributed to later
phases of the Magdalenian.
181
Back to the wall
At the same time, these caves were reutilised in dier-
ent ways as regards the distribution of the recent cave art
phases (gs. 2 and 3). For example, there is a group of caves
in the central/western sector (Peña Candamo, Llonín, Tito
Bustillo, Altamira, and El Castillo) where the previous cave
art phases are distributed through most of the topographical
units in the caves, but the same caves also possess a main
panel each with an accumulation of tens of gures, where
several phases are represented one on top of the other, in-
cluding Middle/Upper Magdalenian art. It is here where
the reutilisation concept makes perfect sense. Other minor
sectors were also decorated in this period, but not in the
same density as in the previous periods. In some other cases
(Pasiega A/B, Pasiega C/D, La Garma, El Buxu, Hornos
de la Peña) there is also a superimposition of phases in the
same panels in several sectors of the caves, but without there
being a main panel as in the previously mentioned group of
caves. A third type of distribution (Salitre, Aitzbitarte IV,
Aitzbitarte V) is characterized by the lack of parietal stra-
tigraphy of the dierent phases. This is to say, the Magda-
lenian cave art is located in parts of the cave that were not
selected by the artists who decorated it in previous phases.
Fig. 2 – Topographic plans of caves in the western Cantabrian Region, where deep zones were reused for decoration with rock art
during the Middle/Upper Magdalenian: Peña Candamo (Corchón et al., 2012); El Pindal (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911); El Buxu
(Menéndez [ed.], 2016); Tito Bustillo (De Balbín Behrmann et al., 2002); Llonín (Berenguer, 1994).
Fig. 2 – Plans des grottes de l’ouest de la Cantabrie, avec réutilisation des zones profondes identiées pour le Magdalénien moyen /
supérieur : Peña Candamo (Corchón et al., 2012) ; El Pindal (Alcalde del Río et al., 1911) ; El Buxu (Menéndez, 2016) ; Tito Bustillo
(De Balbín Behrmann et al., 2002) ; Llonín (Berenguer, 1994).
Abb. 2 – Topographische Pläne der Höhlen in der westlichen kantabrischen Region, in denen Bereiche tief im Inneren zur Dekoration
mit Felskunst während des Späten Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden: Peña Candamo (Corchón et al., 2012); El Pindal (Alcalde
del Río et al., 1911); El Buxu (Menéndez, 2016); Tito Bustillo (De Balbín Behrmann et al., 2002); Llonín (Berenguer, 1994).
182 Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
The case of Pindal is more complicated. Since its dis-
covery, the decorative ensemble in the cave has been as-
sumed to be diachronic by most authors (Alcalde del Río et
al., 1911; Breuil, 1952; Jordá and Berenguer, 1954; Jordá,
1976; Fortea, 1992 and 2000b; González-Echegaray and
González-Sainz, 1994; González-Sainz, 2005a) because
of the presence of dierent topics, including mammoths,
and stylistic features (dierent colours, dierent types of
traces, techniques, etc.). But it has also been considered
synchronic by a few other researchers (Leroi-Gourhan,
1965; Pumarejo, 1989; De Balbín Behrmann et al., 1999)
because of the topographic structure of the ensemble,
Fig. 3 – Topographic plans of caves in the central/east Cantabrian Region, where deep zones were reused for decoration with rock art
during the Middle/Upper Magdalenian: Altamira (Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira); El Castillo (Groenen et al.,
2012); Hornos de la Peña, La Pasiega (Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gob. de Cantabria); El Salitre (Salazar et al., 2019);
La Garma (González Sainz, 2003); Aitzbitarte IV and V (Garate et al., 2020a and 2020c).
Fig. 3 – Plans des grottes du centre et de l’est de la Cantabrie avec réutilisation des zones profondes identiées pour le Magdalénien
moyen / supérieur : Altamira (Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira) ; El Castillo (Groenen et al., 2012) ; Hornos de
la Peña, La Pasiega (Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gob. de Cantabria) ; El Salitre (Salazar et al., 2019) ; La Garma
(González Sainz, 2003) ; Aitzbitarte IV et V (Garate et al., 2020a et 2020c).
Abb. 3 – Topographische Pläne der Höhlen in der zentralen/östlichen kantabrischen Region, in denen Bereiche tief im Inneren für Fels-
kunst während des Späten Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden: Altamira (Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira);
El Castillo (Groenen et al., 2012); Hornos de la Peña, La Pasiega (Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gob. de Cantabria);
El Salitre (Salazar et al., 2019); La Garma (González Sainz, 2003); Aitzbitarte IV and V (Garate et al., 2020a and 2020c).
183
Back to the wall
which is typical of French recent Magdalenian sites. In
our opinion, both possibilities are well argued. Some ani-
mals may display some stylistic features of archaic phases,
e.g., the mammoths with a single leg per pair and an
arched belly; or horses with a double mane, typical of the
Solutrean and older phases, but also of the upper Mag-
dalenian (Sauvet and Rivero, 2016). However, contrary
to other reutilisations in the Cantabrian region (e.g. Peña
Candamo, Altamira, Llonín, etc.), where all the phases
are represented in the same place, creating large palimp-
sests, in Pindal all the gures are distributed more neatly,
each in their own panels. These assessments have been
made before (González-Pumariega, 2011). It should also
be noted that red paintings (generally assumed to belong
to earlier phases) are superimposed on recent Magdaleni-
an engravings, but that there are also cases in which the
opposite occurs. In any case, the type of mammoth gure
found here is always related to archaic phases.
Pyrenees
The Pyrenean Mountains have a lower number of
rock art sites, and these are mostly concentrated in the
central area, Ariège, while towards the Bay of Biscay
coast they become more infrequent and dispersed. In the
eastern area a few minor caves are situated near basins of
rivers owing into the Mediterranean Sea; they have been
excluded from our study.
The pattern for parietal art activity during the Upper
Palaeolithic is totally dierent concerning the sites along
the Pyrenean river basins discharging into the Bay of Bis-
cay. Caves with pre-Magdalenian decoration phases only
are very scarce (n = 3), while most of the ensembles are
dated to the Late Upper Palaeolithic (n = 21), or contain
decorations from several phases (n = 6).
Except for Erberua, all the caves with several decora-
tion phases are located in the area of the Ariège, creating a
gap of 200 kilometres between the Cantabrian region and
the Pyrenean area, in a similar way as previously noted for
the eastern Cantabrian region. In fact, Erberua and Alk-
erdi 2 are the only pre-Magdalenian caves in the western
Pyrenees. Once again, dierent patterns are observed in
the symbolic re-utilisation of the caves (g. 4). In Erberua
and Les Trois Frères there are Gravettian engravings and
hand stencils in dierent sectors, in an arrangement and
style similar to Gargas, but in smaller numbers. Both
caves also contain large ensembles corresponding to the
Middle/Upper Magdalenian, most of them juxtaposed
or even quite distant from the previous parietal art rep-
resentations. Only in the galerie aurignacienne in Les
Trois Frères there are two black Magdalenian bisons and
few engravings of horses covering the Gravettian panels.
On the other hand, Gargas Supérieur and Tibiran are two
small caves near Gargas, and both of them possess mod-
est ensembles with pre-Magdalenian and Magdalenian
cave art. The representations of the two phases are close
to one another inside these caves, but in dierent panels.
In the case of Le Portel and Mas d’Azil, the main ensem-
bles were produced in Magdalenian times. Depending on
stylistic features, some of the animals depicted in the for-
mer cave could be attributed to the Gravettian, but they
are usually located in isolated panels. However, there is
a horse with dotted hindquarters in the panel of the main
composition of Upper Magdalenian horses in the galérie
Régnault. In Mas d’Azil, an isolated space in the galérie
Breuil contains a group of red paintings dierent from
the rest of the art in the cave, which can be stylistically
attributed to pre-Magdalenian phases. Nonetheless, it is
dicult to maintain this attribution, because the stylis-
tic impressions may be due to bad preservation: a horse
displays ‘M’-shaped quartering, a typical convention of
recent Magdalenian phases.
Charente/Dordogne/Lot
This area is a composite of three dierent regions,
next to each other, with a continuous distribution of cave
art. For this reason they are considered together here. This
is one of the most important concentrations of caves with
Upper Palaeolithic art, after the Cantabrian region, and
separated from that region and the Pyrenees by the plain
of the Landes. Caves with several decoration phases are
known in Dordogne and Lot (g. 5), but not in Charente.
In Lot, 21 sites with pre-Magdalenian rock art are
known, with some particular sites where dierent deco-
ration phases have been proposed, but always in periods
before the recent Magdalenian: Pech-Merle (Lorblanchet
et al., 1995), Marcenac (Lorblanchet, 1989), although
considered later by J. Jaubert (2008) to be a synchro-
nous Gravettian ensemble, Les Escabasses (Lorblanchet,
1965), and Cougnac (Valladas et al., 1993; Lorblanchet,
1994b). Nine Magdalenian ensembles are also known:
Pestillac, Bigourdane, Carriot, Christian, Ste. Eulalie,
Lagrave, and Mazet, with two possible cases of reuse of
underground sites. The rst one (Pergouset) is located in
the Lot basin and was considered a synchronic ensemble
(Lorblanchet, 2001), despite the presence of some animal
depictions, with a morphology dierent from that used
during the Magdalenian, which are classied as ‘mon-
sters’ (Lorblanchet and Sieveking, 1997), in a particular
deep sector – Salle IV – and with a contextual dating of
charcoal to the late Aurignacian (Lorblanchet, 2001). Re-
cently, these ‘monsters’ have been thought to be possibly
‘Gravettian’ because of their similarity with a morphotype
dened in caves like Cussac, Gargas, or Aitzbitarte III, V
and IX (Garate et al., 2020b). But the contextual dating
of charcoal, too old for this technocomplex, means this
attribution must be taken with caution. The other cave,
Bourgnetou, is located in the Dordogne basin; there, dia-
chronic ensembles appear isolated along the main gallery,
with a recent Magdalenian engraving of a reindeer in the
deepest zone (Lorblanchet, 1971).
In Dordogne, 71 sites are known with rock art pre-
vious to the recent Magdalenian, and seven recent Mag-
dalenian sites. Only in four cases (Font-de-Gaume,
Combarelles I, La Mouthe, Bernifal) the underground
space might have been reused, and two of these (Com-
barelles I, Bernifal) are to be considered quite uncertain
184 Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
Fig. 4 – Topographic plans of caves in the Pyrenees, where deep zones were reused for decoration with rock art during the Middle/
Upper Magdalenian: Gargas Supérieur (Barrière, 1984a); Mas-d’Azil (Alteirac and Vialou, 1984); Trois Frères (Bégouën and Clottes,
1984); Erberua (Larribau, 2013); Tibiran (Clot, 1984); Le Portel (Dauvois and Vézian, 1984).
Fig. 4 – Plans des grottes des Pyrénées, avec réutilisation des zones profondes identiées pour le Magdalénien moyen / supérieur :
Gargas supérieur (Barrière, 1984a) ; Mas-d’Azil (Alteirac et Vialou, 1984) ; Trois Frères (Bégouën et Clottes, 1984) ; Erberua (Larribau,
2013) ; Tibiran (Clot, 1984) ; Le Portel (Dauvois et Vézian, 1984).
Abb. 4 – Topographische Pläne der Höhlen in den Pyrenäen, in denen Bereiche tief im Inneren für Felskunst während des Späten
Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden: Gargas Supérieur (Barrière, 1984a); Mas-d’Azil (Alteirac and Vialou, 1984); Trois Frères
(Bégouën and Clottes, 1984); Erberua (Larribau, 2013); Tibiran (Clot, 1984); Le Portel (Dauvois and Vézian, 1984).
because of the small number of motifs attributable to older
phases. In all cases, there are no major dierences in the
distribution of the motifs belonging to the two phases,
because those undoubtedly attributed to the Magdaleni-
an, which are much more numerous, occupy a large part
of the previously decorated sectors. However, unlike the
ensembles in the Cantabrian region, for example, large
palimpsests are not observed here, with the exception
perhaps of Font-de-Gaume, where there are possibly dif-
ferent phases represented on the same walls of the main
gallery, but in a less remarkable way.
In Charente, ve sites are known with rock art at-
tributable to phases earlier than the recent Magdalenian,
and four Magdalenian ensembles have been document-
ed, without any reuse of underground spaces decorated
in earlier phases.
Vienne
Four sites with Palaeolithic rock art are known in
Vienne. Only one of them has pre-Magdalenian rock art,
and the others are attributable to recent Magdalenian
phases. The reuse of caves is unknown in this region, and
it is therefore part of a large gap of at least 400 km with-
out reused caves between Loire and Dordogne.
Loire
Only two sites with Palaeolithic rock art are known in
this region. One of them, Mayenne-Sciences, has synchron-
ic decoration, undoubtedly attributable to a Gravettian
phase (Pigeaud et al., 2003, 2010). The other one, Margot,
has two diachronic decoration phases: one consisting of
185
Back to the wall
Fig. 5 – Topographic plans of caves in Dordogne and Quercy, where deep zones were reused for decoration with rock art during the
Middle/Upper Magdalenian: Bernifal cave (Plassard, 2005); La Mouthe (Aujoulat and Geneste, 1984); Combarelles (Barrière, 1984b);
Font-de-Gaume (Roussot, 1984); Pergouset (Lorblanchet, 1984); Bourgnetou (Lorblanchet, 1971).
Fig. 5 – Plans des grottes de Dordogne et du Quercy, avec réutilisation des zones profondes identiées pour le Magdalénien moyen /
supérieur : Bernifal cave (Plassard, 2005) ; La Mouthe (Aujoulat et Geneste, 1984) ; Combarelles (Barrière, 1984b) ; Font-de-Gaume
(Roussot, 1984) ; Pergouset (Lorblanchet, 1984) ; Bourgnetou (Lorblanchet, 1971).
Abb. 5 – Topographische Pläne der Höhlen in den Regionen Dordogne und Quercy, in denen Bereiche tief im Inneren für Felskunst
während des Späten Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden: Bernifal cave (Plassard, 2005); La Mouthe (Aujoulat and Geneste, 1984);
Combarelles (Barrière, 1984b); Font-de-Gaume (Roussot, 1984); Pergouset (Lorblanchet, 1984); Bourgnetou (Lorblanchet, 1971).
hand stencils, oval signs and animals (megaloceros and
bears), attributable to the Gravettian with similarities to
Mayenne-Sciences, and the other one attributable to the
Upper Magdalenian, stylistically comparable to northern
Magdalenian ensembles (e.g. Gönnersdorf-Andernach;
Pigeaud et al., 2006). A (third) Solutrean phase with par-
allels in the nearby Rochefort site (Hinguant and Biard,
2009) has also been proposed (Pigeaud et al., 2012). The
Upper Magdalenian artists used the same galleries that
had been decorated in previous phases but there are no
large palimpsests like in the Cantabrian Region (g. 6).
DISCUSSION
The results of this diachronic approach to cave art indi-
cate that the reuse of underground spaces for symbo-
lic purposes during the Upper Palaeolithic shows a very
dierent distribution and characteristics around the Bay
of Biscay seaboard (g. 7).
Most of the reused caves are situated in the Can-
tabrian region. This might be related to more continuous
graphical activities during the whole Upper Palaeolithic
186 Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
Fig. 6 – Topographic plan of the Margot cave (NW
France), where deep zones were reused for deco-
ration with rock art during the Middle/Upper Mag-
dalenian (Pigeaud et al., 2006).
Fig. 6 – Plan de la grotte Margot avec réutilisa-
tion des zones profondes identiées pour le Mag-
dalénien moyen / supérieur (Pigeaud et al., 2006).
Abb. 6 – Topographischer Plan der Höhle in der
Loire Region, in der Bereiche tief im Inneren für
Felskunst während des Späten Magdalénien wie-
derholt genutzt wurden: Margot cave (Pigeaud
et al., 2006).
and to the location of the cave sites in narrow valleys with
an N-S orientation, especially on the central/western side
(González-Sainz, 2004). In contrast, relative continuity is
seen in the decoration of caves in the Dordogne and Lot,
but these activities decreased noticeably during the Mag-
dalenian. In both regions, the reutilisation of the same
caves is mostly anecdotic. Therefore, this pattern is pro-
foundly dierent from the one observed in the Cantabrian
region. This contrasts with the model of occupation of
the landscape, since there are abundant habitation places
with prolonged use, such as Le Placard, Laugerie Haute,
Laugerie Basse, La Madeleine, etc., although it is true that
in most cases these were in rock-shelters and not caves
(e.g. Capitan and Peyrony, 1928; Boyle, 1996; Clottes et
al., 1997). In the other regions, the situation is completely
dierent. The Pyrenees show a much higher density of
Magdalenian cave art than of older periods. This coin-
cides with a progressive increase in occupation deposits
throughout the Upper Palaeolithic (Clottes, 1989). Thus,
the possibility of the reutilisation of caves is consequently
more limited. In Charente, Vienne, and Loire there is little
cave art, and, in most cases, it is ascribed to Magdaleni-
an periods without a diachronic development (Airvaux,
2001), except in Margot Cave (Pigeaud et al., 2006).
Another aspect to compare between the dierent
regions is the way in which the Magdalenian graphic
production is inserted in the previously decorated caves.
Dierent patterns can be discriminated (g. 8).
In the reused caves in the Loire, Dordogne, and Quer-
cy, two main tendencies are dened. There are large
recent Magdalenian ensembles in caves with scarce
pre-Magdalenian non-gurative art (e.g. Margot, Com-
barelles I, Bernifal), and exceptionally there are also a
few unremarkable Magdalenian ensembles in small caves
with pre-Magdalenian decoration (e.g. Bourgnetou).
Only in the case of Font-de-Gaume, dierent phases may
be represented in the same places across the main gal-
lery, which is comparable to some sites in the Cantabrian
region, but to a lesser extent, perhaps due to bad preser-
vation. In the Pyrenees the situation is slightly dierent.
Here there are some pre-Magdalenian ensembles, includ-
ing animals and hand prints (e.g. Erberua, Trois Frères),
where the large Magdalenian decorations have partially
covered the more archaic ones. In some other cases, there
are small pre-Magdalenian and Magdalenian ensembles
in the same caves (e.g. Tibiran, Gargas Supérieur), but
distributed in dierent sectors. The Cantabrian region has
a totally dierent pattern which is especially observed
in its central/western part. Here the reuse of caves is a
recurrent behaviour with special interaction between the
dierent decoration phases. This is to say, the same main
walls have been selected, with new paintings and engrav-
ings covering the previous ones again and again. This is
clearly appreciable in half a dozen caves (Peña Canda-
mo, Llonín, Tito Bustillo, Altamira, Castillo) where the
same graphic phases can be discriminated on the main
walls, as if it were a process of updating the cave’s icono-
graphic repertoire. In fact, all these recurrent panels are
located in large spaces with easy access, or even share
the same space as habitat areas (e.g. Tito Bustillo, Llonín,
Altamira). In this way, they may have been public symbols
indicating the human group based in this area. Nothing
similar can be detected for the rest of western Europe, not
even in the eastern Cantabrian region.
A possible explanation for this exceptional pattern can
be related with a continuous identication of the graphical
codes during the whole Upper Palaeolithic and with a pro-
gressive adaptation over time to the new ones (updating
of the main walls). In this case, the symbolic value of
the placement is as important as the rock art itself, pro-
longing its usefulness by re-appropriation throughout the
whole Upper Palaeolithic. In fact, these caves have a long
chronology, with the stratigraphic data recovered in the
archaeological depositsindicating continuous occupation.
In conclusion, a strong attachment to the same places
can be detected in the central/western Cantabrian region,
Fig. 7 – Comparison between reused sites and the ex novo Late Upper Palaeolithic cave art in the Bay of Biscay.
Fig. 7 – Comparaison entre l‘art rupestre réutilisé et ex novo au Paléolithique supérieur tardif du golfe de Gascogne.
Abb. 7 – Vergleich zwischen den wiederholt genutzten Fundstellen und der ex novo Höhlenkunst des späten Jungpaläolithikums im
Golf von Biskaya.
187
Back to the wall
Fig. 8 – Comparison between the topographical distribution of dierent diachronic ensembles in caves reused during the Middle/Upper
Magdalenian in the Bay of Biscay watershed.
Fig. 8 – Comparaison entre la distribution topographique de diérents ensembles diachroniques dans des grottes réutilisées au cours
du Magdalénien moyen / supérieur dans le bassin versant du golfe de Gascogne.
Abb. 8 – Vergleich zwischen der topographischen Verteilung verschiedener diachroner Ensembles von Höhlen im Golf von Biskaya, die
während des Späten Magdalénien wiederholt genutzt wurden.
not only for subsistence strategies, but also for symbolic
purposes. It is interesting to note that the Cantabrian
region had very specic graphic traditions already in
pre-Magdalenian times (Garate, 2008) that likely rein-
forced this close diachronic bond. Some similar sites in
other areas display recurrence in the habitat, like Isturitz,
Mas d’Azil, or Le Portel in the Pyrenees (Clottes, 1989),
and La Mouthe, Font-de-Gaume, or Combarelles I in the
Dordogne (Aujoulat and Geneste, 1984; Plassard, 2005).
Even so, the symbolic pattern is dierent there, possibly
because they are more dispersed geographically or just
because there was a dierent way to reuse the symbolic
spaces (without a clear superimposition over the previous
phases, perhaps distancing themselves from them).
Cantabrian Pyrenees Charente/
Dordogne/Lot
Loire
3 3
2
1
5
3 3
5
1
Seperated Slight overlap High overlap
Cantabrian Pyrenees Charente/
Dordogne/Lot
Loire
27
20
18
1
13
6 6
1
Ex novo Reused
Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
CONCLUSION
This paper has approached, for the rst time, to study
the reutilisation of symbolically used underground
spaces around the Bay of Biscay during the Upper Pa-
laeolithic. Previous studies have been partial, restricted to
specic geographical areas, and have not considered the
phenomenon as a whole. Therefore, the main goal of the
present study was to construct a preliminary overview in
order to nd dierences and/or similarities in the reutili-
sation patterns.
As determined, there is a recurrence in the symbol-
ic use of these spaces during the whole period, which
is especially striking in the central/western Cantabrian
region. This is very signicant because it provides evi-
dence for shared behaviour concerning graphic codes in
human groups that followed one another over time and
are archaeologically represented by very dierent techno-
complexes. In fact, regarding the Upper Palaeolithic as
a whole, this re-appropriation is expressed in dierent
ways: sometimes there is a restoration of previous images
as in Cougnac and Pech-Merle for pre-Magdalenian pe-
riods (Lorblanchet, 2010), in other cases an update of a
message when new gures are superimposed in the main
sectors like in the western Cantabrian region (González-
Sainz, 2004), a kind of physical disconnection recurring
to dierent parts of the caves – with only a few over-
lapping examples – as in the eastern Cantabrian region,
Pyrenees, and the French regions (Garate et al., 2020a, b
and c), or even a rupture, with previous phases ‘deleted’
as in Cosquer or Chauvet (Clottes et al., 2005). In fact,
this is visible also in other regions and chronologies of
the European Palaeolithic: La Pileta cave at the Medi-
terranean coast, for example, has continuous decoration
phases since pre-Magdalenian times to the Holocene
(Sanchidrián et al., 2001), and there are open-air sites
in some Iberian river valleys of Spain and Portugal (e.g.
Douro, Tajo, Guadiana) with several continuous decora-
tion phases (De Balbín Behrmann, 2008), as well as the
diachronic accumulation of portable art in Parpalló cave
(Villaverde, 1994).
This type of reuse dynamics of rock art sites is also
well known in other geographical and chronological
contexts with very complex sequences and extended
over time (Lorblanchet, 1980). For example, this is the
case for South African art from North Cave at Drakens-
berg (Russell, 2000), Borneo, Sulawesi, and east Timor
(Aubert et al., 2014; 2018b; Standish et al., 2020), in the
Patagonian (Argentina) Las Manos Cave (Gradin et al.,
1976), or in the Australian Arnhem Land (Chippindale
and Taçon, 1993).
Even from an ethno-archaeological point of view, this
re-appropriation has been common behaviour of some
human groups around the world. It has been documented
for the San people, for whom possible dierent meanings
for each art production episode are suggested (Lewis-
Williams, 1992), or identied in aggregation camps in the
Dâureb massif in Namibia (Vogels et al., 2020). Indeed, in
many European caves with Palaeolithic art, an extensive
repertoire of archaeological remains is known (whether
chronologically related to graphic activity or not), which
might indicate a reuse of these spaces even at moments
far removed from the application of the decoration itself
(Medina-Alcaide et al., 2018).
As we have mentioned before, the current investiga-
tion was limited to the main topic of the geographical
and spatial distribution of the caves and is preliminary
because our main objective was – and still remains – a
global overview. Further and more profound analyses
should be carried out to specify the interaction between
the dierent decoration phases, to dene the graphic con-
struction patterns in the ensembles and, obviously, to ex-
plain the dierences detected.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
188
Airvaux J. (2001) – L’art préhistorique du Poitou-Charentes,
Sculptures et gravures des temps glaciaires, Paris, La Mai-
son des Roches, 223 p.
Alcalde Del Río H., Breuil H., Sierra L. (1911) – Les
cavernes de la région cantabrique (Espagne), Monaco,
Chêne, 265 p.
Alteirac A., Vialou D. (1984) – La grotte de Mas-d’Azil, in
Collective (ed.), L’art des cavernes, Atlas des grottes or-
nées paléolithiques françaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale,
p. 389-394.
Arias P., Pérez-Suárez C. (1993) – Las pinturas rupestres
paleolíticas de El Covarón (Parres, Llanes, Asturias),
Zephyrus, 46, p. 37-75.
Aranburu A., Arsuaga J. L., Sala N. (2017) – The stratigra-
phy of the Sima de los Huesos (Atapuerca, Spain) and im-
plications for the origin of the fossil hominin accumulation,
Quaternary International, 433, p. 5-21.
Arsuaga J. L., Martínez Mendizábal I., Arnold L. J.,
Aranburu A., Gracia Téllez A., Sharp W. D., Quam
R. M., Falguères C., Pantoja-Pérez A., Bischoff J.,
Poza Rey E., Parés J. M., Carretero J. M., Demuro
M., Lorenzo C., Sala N., Martinón Torres M., García
N., Alcázar De Velasco A., Cuenca Bescós G.,
Gómez-Olivencia A., Moreno D., Pablos A., Shen C.
C., Rodríguez L., Ortega A. I., García R., Bonmatí
A., Bermúdez De Castro J. M., Carbonell E. (2014) –
Neandertal roots: Cranial and chronological evidence from
Sima de los Huesos, Science, 344, 6190, p. 1358-1363.
Aubert M., Brumm A., Ramli M., Sutikna T., Saptomo E.
W., Hakim B., Morwood M. J., Van Den Bergh G. D.,
Kinsley L., Dosseto A. (2014) – Pleistocene cave art
from Sulawesi, Indonesia, Nature, 514, 7521, p. 223-227.
Aubert M., Brumm A., Huntley J. (2018a) – Early dates for
‘Neanderthal cave art’ may be wrong, Journal of Human
Evolution, 125, p. 215-217.
189
Back to the wall
Aubert M., Setiawan P., Oktaviana A. A., Brumm A.,
Sulistyarto P. H., Saptomo E. W., Istiawan B., Ma’rifat T.
A., Wahyuono V. N., Atmoko F. T., Zhao J.-X., Huntley
J., Taçon P. S. C., Howard D. L., Zhao J. X. (2018b) –
Palaeolithic cave art in Borneo, Nature, 564, 7735, p. 254-257.
Aujoulat N., Geneste J. M. (1984) – La grotte de La Mouthe,
in Collective (ed.), L’art des cavernes, Atlas des grottes or-
nées paléolithiques françaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale,
p. 144-147.
Bahn P. (1982) – Intersite and Inter-regional links during the
Upper Palaeolithic: the Pyrenean evidence, Oxford Journal
of Archaeology, 1, 3, p. 247-288.
Barrière C. (1984a) – La grotte de Gargas, in Collective (ed.),
L’art des cavernes, Atlas des grottes ornées paléolithiques
françaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, p. 514-522.
Barrière C. (1984b) – La grotte des Combarelles I, in Col-
lective (ed.), L’art des cavernes, Atlas des grottes ornées
paléolithiques françaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, p.
109-113.
Barrière C. (1997) – L’art pariétal des grottes des Comba-
relles, Sèvres (Paléo Hors-série), 609 p.
Bednarik R. G. (2012) – U-Th analysis and rock art: a
response to Pike et al., Rock Art Research, 29, 2, p. 244-246.
Bégouën H., Breuil H. (1958) – Les cavernes du Volp : Trois
Frères, Tuc d’Audoubert, Paris, Arts et métiers graphiques,
123 p.
Bégouën R., Clottes J. (1984) – La grotte des Trois Frères,
in Collective (ed.), L’art des cavernes, Atlas des grottes or-
nées paléolithiques françaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale,
p. 400-409.
Berenguer M. (1994) – Arte prehistórico en cuevas del Norte
de España Asturias, Ciudad de México, Frente de arma-
ción hispanista, 286 p.
Boyle K. V. (1996) – From Laugerie Basse to Jolivet: the or-
ganization of nal Magdalenian settlement in the Vézère
valley, World Archaeology, 27, 3, p. 477-491.
Breuil H. (1952) – Quatre cents siècles d’art pariétal. Les
cavernes ornées de l’âge du renne, Montignac, Centre
d’Études et de documentation préhistoriques, 413 p.
Breuil H., Obermaier H., Alcalde Del Río H. (1913) – La
Pasiega à Puente Viesgo (Santander)(Espagne), Monaco
(Peintures et gravures murales des cavernes paléolithiques,
5), Chêne, 128 p.
Breuil H., Obermaier H. (1935) – La cueva de Altamira en
Santillana del Mar, Madrid, Tipografía de Archivos, 223 p.
Capitan L., Breuil H., Peyrony D. (1924) – Les Combarelles
aux Eyzies (Dordogne), Paris, Masson (Peintures et gra-
vures murales des cavernes paléolithiques 4), 189 p.
Capitan L., Peyrony D. (1928) – La Madeleine : son gisement,
son industrie, ses œuvres d’art (Vol. 2), Paris, É. Nourry (Pu-
blications de l’Institut international d’anthropologie, 2), 125 p.
Chippindale C., Taçon P. S. C. (1993) – Two old painted panels
from Kakadu: variation and sequence in Arnhem Land rock art,
in J. Steinbring, A. Watchman, P. Faulstich and P. S. C. Taçon
(eds.), Time and Space: Dating and Spatial Considerations in
Rock Art Research, Melbourne, Australian Rock Art Research
Association (Occasional AURA Publication, 8.), p. 32-56.
Clot A. (1984) – La grotte de Tibiran, in Collective (ed.), L’art
des cavernes, Atlas des grottes ornées paléolithiques fran-
çaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, p. 536-539.
Clottes J. (1989) – Le Magdalénien des Pyrénées, in J. P. Rigaud
(ed.), Le Magdalénien en Europe, Colloque Mayence 1987,
XI congrès UISPP, Liège, Université de Liège, p. 281-357.
Clottes, J. (ed.) (2001) – La grotte Chauvet. L’art des ori-
gines, Seuil, Paris, 224 p.
Clottes J. (2012a) – Ritual cave use in European Paleolithic
caves, in H. Moyes (ed.), Sacred Darkness. A Global Per-
spective on the Ritual Use of Caves, Colorado, University
Press of Colorado, p. 15-26.
Clottes, J. (2012b) – Datations U-Th, évolution de I’art et Ne-
anderthal, International Newsletter on Rock Art, 64, p. 1-6.
Clottes J., Valladas H., Cachier H., Arnold M. (1992) –
Des dates pour Niaux et Gargas, Bulletin de la Société pré-
historique française, 89, 9, p. 270-274.
Clottes J., Duport L., Feruglio V. (1997) – La grotte ornée
du Placard commune de Vilhonneur (Charente), Bulletins
et mémoires de la Société archéologique et historique de la
Charente, 153, 4, p. 199-214.
Clottes J., Courtin J., Vanrell, L. (2005) – Cosquer redé-
couvert, Seuil, Paris, 256 p.
Combier J., Jouve G. (2014) – Nouvelles recherches sur l’identi-
té culturelle et stylistique de la Grotte Chauvet et sur sa data-
tion par la méthode du 14C, L’Anthropologie, 118, p. 115-151.
Conkey M. (1980) – The Identication of Prehistoric Hunter-
Gatherer Aggregation Sites: the Case of Altamira, Current
Anthropology, 21, 5, p. 609-360.
Conkey M. (1992) – Les sites d’agrégation et la répartition de
l’art mobilier, ou : Y a-t-il des sites d’agrégation magdalé-
niens ?, in J.-Ph. Rigaud, H. Laville and B. Vandermeer-
sch (eds.), Le Peuplement magdalénien, actes du colloque
(Chancelade, 1988), Paris, CTHS, p. 19-25.
Corchón M. S., Garate D., Hernando C., Ortega P.,
Rivero O. (2012) – Vers un modèle décoratif pour la grotte de
La Peña de Candamo (Asturies, Nord de l’Espagne) à la lumière
des nouvelles découvertes, in J. Clottes (ed.), L’art pléistocène
dans le monde / Pleistocene art of the world / Arte pleistoceno
en el mundo, Actes du Congrès IFRAO (Tarascon-sur-Ariège,
septembre 2010), Symposium « Art pléistocène en Europe »,
Préhistoire, art et sociétés, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique
Ariège-Pyrénées, 65-66, p. 123-143.
Corchon M. S., Garate D. G., Rivero O. (eds.). (2017) – La
Caverna de la Peña de Candamo (Asturias): 100 años des-
pués de su descubrimiento, Salamanca, Ediciones Universi-
dad Salamanca, 288 p.
Dauvois M., Vezian J. (1984) – La grotte du Portel, in Collec-
tive (ed.), L’art des cavernes, Atlas des grottes ornées paléo-
lithiques françaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, p. 381-389.
De Balbín Behrmann R. (2008) – Arte prehistórico al aire
libre en el Sur de Europa, Valladolid, Junta de Castilla y
León, Serie Actas, 500 p.
De Balbín Behrmann R., Gonzalez Sainz, C. (1993) –
Nuevas investigaciones en la cueva de La Pasiega (Puente
Viesgo, Cantabria), Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de
Arte y Arqueología, 59, p. 9-34.
Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
De Balbín Behrmann R., Alcolea-González J. J.,
González-Pereda M. A. (1999) – Une vision nouvelle
de la grotte de El Pindal, Pimiango, Ribadedeva, Asturias,
L’Antropologie, 103, p. 51-92.
De Balbín Behrmann R., Alcolea-González J. J.,
Gonzalez-Pereda M. A., Moure-Romanillo A. (2002)
– Recherches dans le massif d’Ardines: nouvelles galeries
ornées de la grotte de Tito Bustillo, L’Anthropologie, 106,
p. 565-602.
De Balbín Behrmann R., Alcolea-González J. J.,
Gonzalez-Pereda M. A. (2005) – La Lloseta : une grotte
importante et presque méconnue dans l’ensemble de Ar-
dines, Ribadesella, L’Anthropologie, 109, p. 641-701.
De Balbín Behrmann R., Alcolea-González J. J.,
Alcaraz-Castaño M. (2016) – The Palaeolithic art of
Tito Bustillo cave (Asturias, Spain) in its archaeological
context, Quaternary International, 430, p. 81-96.
De La Rasilla M., Duarte E. (2018) – ¿Casualidad o estrate-
gia? Las aguas termales y minero-medicinales en la cong-
uración de los yacimientos con arte rupestre paleolítico de
Asturias y su correlato cantábrico, Nailos, 5, p. 17-41.
De Las Heras C., Montes R., Lasheras J. A. (2013) –
Altamira: nivel gravetiense y cronología de su arte rupes-
tre (Altamira: the gravettian level and the chronology of its
cave art), in C. de las Heras, J. A. Lasheras, Á. Arrizabala-
ga and M. de la Rasilla (eds.), Pensando el Gravetiense:
nuevos datos para la región cantábrica en su contexto
peninsular y pirenaico (Rethinking the Gravettian: new ap-
proaches for the Cantabrian Region in its peninsular and
pyrenean contexts), Madrid, Ministerio de Educación, Cul-
tura y Deporte, Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación
de Altamira (Monografía, 23), p. 476-491.
Díaz Casado Y., Astorqui Á. (2012) – Nuevos hallazgos de
arte parietal y mobiliar en la cueva de La Cullalvera (Ra-
males de la Victoria, Cantabria), Zephyrus, 69, p. 191-198.
Feruglio V., Jaubert J., Lorblanchet M. (2007) – Deux
sanctuaires ornés en Quercy : le réseau de Combe-Nègre à
Frayssinet-le-Gélat (Lot), in R. Desbrosses and A. Thévenin
(eds.), Arts et cultures de la préhistoire, Hommages à Henri
Delporte, Paris, CTHS (Documents préhistoriques, 24), p.
71-82.
Feruglio V., Aujoulat N., Jaubert J. (2011) – L’art pariétal
gravettien, ce qu’il révèle de la société en complément de
la culture matérielle, in N. Goutas, L. Klaric, D. Pesesse
and P. Guillermin (eds.), A la recherche des identités gra-
vettiennes. Actualités, questionnements, perspectives, Paris,
Société préhistorique française (Mémoire, 52), p. 225-242.
Floss H., Ostheider M. (2013) – Die Farbe Rot in der paläo-
lithischen Kunst., in H. Meller, Chr.-H. Wunderlich and
F. Knoll (eds.), Rot – Die Archäologie bekennt Farbe. 5.
Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag vom 4. bis 6. Oktober
2012 in Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denk-
malpege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt (Tagungen des
Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle, 10), p. 89-98.
Fortea J. (1992) – El Pindal, Asturias, in Collective, La Nais-
sance de L’Art en Europe, Paris, Unión Latine, p. 246-248.
Fortea J. (2000a) – Los comienzos del arte paleolítico en As-
turias: aportaciones desde una arqueología contextual no
postestilística, Zephyrus, 53-54, p. 177-216.
Fortea J. (2000b) – El Pindal, vision nouvelle ou ction ?, Pré-
histoire, art et sociétés, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique
de l’Ariège, 55, p. 35-62.
Fortea J. (2007) – Apuntes sobre el arte paleolítico del Oriente
de Asturias, in S. Ríos, C. García De Castro, M. De La
Rasilla and J. Fortea (eds.), Arte rupestre prehistórico del
Oriente de Asturias, Oviedo: Consorcio para el Desarrollo
Rural del Oriente de Asturias, p. 203-249.
Fortea J., De La Rassila M., Rodríguez Otero V. (2004) –
L’art pariétal et la séquence archéologique paléolithique de
la grotte de Llonín (Peñamellera Alta, Asturias, Espagne),
Préhistoire, art et sociétés, Bulletin de la Société préhisto-
rique de l´Ariège, 59, p. 7-29.
Garate D. (2008) – The continuation of graphic traditions
in Cantabrian pre-Magdalenian parietal art, International
Newsletter of Rock Art, 50, p. 18-25.
Garate D. (2018) – New insights into the study of Palaeolithic
rock art: Dismantling the ‘Basque Country Void’, Journal of
Anthropological Research, 74, 2, p. 168-200.
Garate D., Rios-Garaizar J., Talamo S. (2019) – Inser-
ción de objetos en las paredes de la cueva de La Pasiega B
(Puente Viesgo, Cantabria), Zephyrus, 83, p.187-199.
Garate D., Rivero O., Ríos-Garaizar J., Intxaurbe I.,
Salazar S. (2020a) – Modelled clay animals in Aitzbitarte
IV Cave: a unique Palaeolithic rock art site in the Cantabri-
an region, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 31,
102270.
Garate D., Rivero O., Ríos-Garaizar J., Intxaurbe I.,
Salazar S. (2020b) – Arte parietal paleolítico en la cueva
de Aitzbitarte V (Errenteria, Gipuzkoa): un nuevo conjunto
decorado diacrónico en el cantábrico oriental, Trabajos de
Prehistoria, 77,2, p. 320-336.
Garate D., Rivero O., Ríos-Garaizar J., Arriolaben-
goa M., Intxaurbe I., Salazar S. (2020c) – Redening
shared symbolic networks during the Gravettian in Western
Europe: new data from the rock art ndings in Aitzbitarte
caves (Northern Spain), Plos One, 15(10): e0240481.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240481.
García-Diez M., Garrido D., Hoffmann D. L., Pettitt
P. B., Pike A. W. G., Zilhão J. (2015) – The chronolo-
gy of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art: im-
plications of new U-series results from El Castillo Cave
(Cantabria, Spain), Journal of Anthropological Sciences,
93, p. 1-18.
García-Díez M., Barandiaran I., Garrido-Pimentel D.,
Ochoa B., Andrés Herrero M., Álvarez A. (2017) –
Arte rupestre de la cueva de Coímbre (Asturias, España),
La cueva de Coímbre (Peñamellera Alta, Asturias): ocupa-
ciones humanas en el Valle del Cares durante el Paleolítico
superior, Oviedo, Fundación María Cristina Masaveu Pe-
terson, p. 470-517.
González-Echegaray J., González-Sainz C. (1994) –
Conjuntos rupestres paleolíticos de la Cornisa Cantábrica,
Complutum, 5, p. 21-43.
González-Pumariega M. (2011) – La cueva de El Pindal
1911-2011. Estudio de su arte rupestre cien años después
de Les cavernes de la région cantabrique, Oviedo, Ménsula
ediciones, 212 p.
190
González-Sainz C. (2003) – El conjunto parietal paleolítico
de la galería inferior de la Garma (Cantabria), Avance de su
organización interna, in P. Bueno and R. de Balbín Behr-
mann (eds.), El Arte prehistórico desde los inicios del siglo
XXI, Primer symposium internacional del arte prehistórico
de Ribadesella, Ribadesella, Asociación Amigos de Ribade-
sella, p. 201-222.
González-Sainz C. (2004) – Arte parietal en la región
cantábrica: centros y peculiaridades regionales, in M. A.
Fano (ed.), Las sociedades del Paleolítico en la Región
Cantábrica, Bilbao, Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (Kobie
[Paleoantropología], anejo 8), p. 403-424.
González-Sainz C. (2005a) – El punto de vista de los autores
estructuralistas: a la búsqueda de un orden en las cuevas
decoradas del Paleolítico Superior, in J. A. Lasheras and J.
González Echegaray (eds.), El signicado del Arte Pale-
olítico, memoria del curso desarrollado en la Universidad
Internacional Menéndez Pelayo, en Santander, del 12 al 16
de agosto de 2002, organizado por la Dirección General de
Bellas Artes y Bienes Culturales y la Fundación Marcelino
Botín, Madrid, Subdirección General de Museos Estatales,
p. 181-209.
González-Sainz C. (2005b) – Actividad gráca magdale-
niense en la región cantábrica. Datación y modicaciones
iconográcas, Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueología Pen-
insular, Faro, Universidade do Algarbe, p. 157-181.
Gradin C. J., Aschero C., Aguerre A. M. (1976) – Investi-
gaciones arqueológicas en la Cueva de las Manos, Alto Río
Pinturas, Santa Cruz, Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina
de Antropología, 10, p. 201-250.
Groenen M., Groenen M. C., Ceballos J. M., Gonzalez-
Echegaray J. (2012) – Bilan de sept années des recherches
dans la grotte ornée d’El Castillo (Cantabrie, Espagne), in
J. Clottes (ed.), L’art pléistocène dans le monde / Pleistoce-
ne art of the world / Arte pleistoceno en el mundo, Actes
du Congrès IFRAO, Tarascon-sur-Ariège, septembre 2010,
Symposium « Art pléistocène en Europe », Préhistoire, Art
et Sociétés, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique Ariège-
Pyrénées, 65-66, p. 145-163.
Hinguant S., Biard M. (2009) – Le Paléolithique supérieur
ancien de la vallée de l’Erve (Mayenne) : un état des connais-
sances, in P. Bodu, L. Chehmana, L. Klaric, L. Mevel, S.
Soriano and N. Teyssandier (eds.), Le Paléolithique supé-
rieur ancien de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest, Actes du colloque
de Sens (15-18 avril 2009), Société préhistorique française
(Mémoire, 56), p. 239-250.
Hoffmann D. L., Standish C. D., Garcia-Diez M.,
Pettitt P. B., Milton J. A., Zilhao J., Alcolea-Gonzalez
J. J., Cantalejo-Duarte P., Collado H., De Balbín
Behrmann R., Lorblanchet M., Ramos-Muñoz J.,
Weniger G.-CH., Pike A. W. G. (2018a) – U-Th dating of
carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave
art, Science, 359, p. 912-915.
Hoffmann D. L., Standish C. D., García-Diez M., Pet-
titt P. B., Milton J. A., Zilhão J., Alcolea-González
J. J., Cantalejo-Duarte P., Collado H., De Balbín
Behrmann R., Lorblanchet M., Pike A. W. G. (2018b) –
Response to Comment on ‘U-Th dating of carbonate crusts
reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art’, Science, 362,
6411, eaau 1736.
Hoffmann D. L., Standish C. D., Pike A. W. G., García-
Diez M., Pettitt P. B., Milton J. A., Zilhão J.,
Alcolea-González J. J., Cantalejo-Duarte P.,
Collado H., De Balbín Behrmann R., Lorblanchet
M. (2018c) – Dates for Neanderthal art and symbolic behav-
ior are reliable, Nature ecology & evolution, 2, 7, p. 1044.
Hoffmann D. L., Standish C. D., García-Diez M., Pet-
titt P. B., Milton J. A., Zilhão J., Alcolea-González
J. J., Cantalejo-Duarte P., Collado H., De Balbín
Behrmann R., Lorblanchet M. (2019) – Response to
Aubert et al.’s reply ‘Early dates for “Neanderthal cave
art” may be wrong’, Journal of Human Evolution, 125, p.
215-217.
Jaubert J. (2008) – L’« art » pariétal gravettien en France: élé-
ments pour un bilan chronologique, Paléo, 20, p. 439-474.
Jaubert J., Verheyden S., Genty D., Soulier M., Cheng
H., Blamart D., Burlet C., Camus H., Delaby S.,
Deldicque D., Edwards R.L., Ferrier C., Lacrampe-
Cuyaubère F., Lévêque F., Maksud F., Mora P., Muth
X., Régnier E., Rouzaud J. N., Santos F. (2016) – Early
Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in south-
western France, Nature, 534, 7605, p. 111-114.
Jordá F. (1976) – Guía de las cuevas prehistóricas asturianas,
Salinas, Ayalga, 167 p.
Jordá F., Berenguer M. (1954) – La cueva de El Pindal
(Asturias): nuevas aportaciones, Boletín del Real Instituto
de Estudios Asturianos, 23, p. 337-364.
Larribau J.-D. (2013) – La grotte Erberua. Art pariétal préhi-
storique du pays Basque (Isturitz – Oxocelhaya – Erberua),
Orthez, L’auteur, 350 p.
Le Guillou Y. (2017) – Les galeries ornées de la grotte du Mas
d’Azil, Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, 69, p. 5-30.
Leroi-Gourhan A. (1965) – La préhistoire de l’art occidental,
Paris, Mazenod, 499 p.
Lewis-Williams J. D. (1992) – Vision, Power and Dance: The
Genesis of a Southern African Rock Art Panel, Fourteenth
Kroon Lecture, Amsterdam, Stichting Nederlands Museum
voor Anthropologie en Praehistorie, 36 p.
Lorblanchet M. (1965) – Découverte de peintures et d’une
gravure préhistorique dans la grotte des Escabasses (com-
mune de Thémines, Lot), Bulletin de la Société préhisto-
rique française, 62, 7, p. 240-261.
Lorblanchet M. (1971) – Nouvelles gures pariétales paléo-
lithiques en Quercy, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique
française, 68, 1, p. 293-310.
Lorblanchet M. (1980) – Les gravures de l´Ouest australien,
leur rénovation au cours des âges, Bulletin de la Société pré-
historique française, 77, 10-12, p. 463-477.
Lorblanchet M. (1984) – La Grotte de Pergouset, in Col-
lective (ed.), L’art des cavernes, Atlas des grottes ornées
paléolithiques françaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, p.
504-506.
Lorblanchet M. (1989) – Nouvelles découvertes d’art parié-
tal paléolithique en Quercy, in Art pariétal paléolithique,
Etude et conservation, Actes du Colloque de Périgueux – Le
Thot (nov. 1984), Paris, Centre National de Préhistoire and
Mission des Relations Extérieures, p. 79-105.
191
Back to the wall
Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
Lorblanchet M. (1994a) – Le mode d’utilisation des sanc-
tuaires paléolithiques, in J. A. Lasheras (ed.), Homenaje al
Dr. Joaquín González Echegaray, Madrid, Ministerio de
Cultura and Museo y Centro de Investigación de Altamira
(Monografía, 17), p. 235-251.
Lorblanchet M. (1994b) – Cougnac, International Newsletter
on Rock Art, 7, p. 6-7.
Lorblanchet M. (2001) – La grotte ornée de Pergouset
(Saint-Géry, Lot) : un sanctuaire secret paléolithique,
Paris, Éditions de la maison des sciences de l’homme
(Documents d’archéologie française, 85), p. 5-189.
Lorblanchet M. (2010) – Art pariétal : grottes ornées du
Quercy, Paris, Rouergue, 448 p.
Lorblanchet M., Cachier H., Valladas H. (1995) – Direct
date for one of the Pech-Merle spotted horses, International
Newsletter on Rock Art, 12, p. 2.
Lorblanchet M., Sieveking A. (1997) – The monsters of
Pergouset, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 7, 1, p.
37-56.
Medina-Alcaide M., Garate D., Ruiz-Redondo A.,
Sanchidrian-Torti J. (2018) – Beyond art: The internal
archaeological context in Paleolithic decorated caves, Jour-
nal of Anthropological Archaeology, 49, p. 114-128.
Menéndez M. (ed.) (2016) – Arte rupestre paleolítico en la
Cueva del Buxu (Asturias, España), en el centenario de su
descubrimiento, Excavaciones Arqueológicas en Asturias,
Monografías, IV, Oviedo, Consejería de Educación y Cultu-
ra y GEA (Gran Enciclopedia Asturiana), 126 p.
Mellars P. (2004) – Neanderthals and the modern human col-
onization of Europe, Nature, 432, p. 461-465.
Mithen S. (1996) – The prehistory of mind. The cognitive ori-
gins of art, religion and science, London, Thames & Hud-
son, 288 p.
Montes R., Muñoz-Fernández E., Morlote Expósito J.
M. (2005) – Cueva Urdiales (Castro Urdiales, Cantabria),
Estudio geo-arqueológico y arte rupestre paleolítico,
Santander, Ayuntamiento de Castro Urdiales, Concejalía de
Medio Ambiente y Patrimonio Arqueológico, 138 p.
Moure A. (1994) – Arte paleolítico y geografías sociales.
Asentamiento, movilidad y agregación en el nal del Paleo-
lítico cantábrico, in T. Chapa and M. Menéndez (eds.), Arte
Paleolítico, Madrid, Editorial Complutense (Complutum,
5), p. 313-342.
Moure A., González-Sainz C. (2000) – Cronología del arte
paleolítico cantábrico: últimas aportaciones y estado actual
de la cuestión, Actas do 3º Congresso de Arqueologia Pen-
insular (Vila Real, 1999), vol. II: Paleolítico da Península
Ibérica, Porto, ADECAP, p. 461-473.
Olive M. (2004) – À propos du gisement magdalénien
d’Étiolles (Essonne) : réexion sur la fonction d’un site pa-
léolithique, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française,
101, 4, p. 797-813.
Pearce D. G., Bonneau A. (2018) – Trouble on the dating
scene, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, p. 925-926.
Pettitt P. (2002) – The Neanderthal dead: exploring mortuary
variability in Middle Palaeolithic Eurasia, Before Farming,
4, p. 1-26.
Pettitt P. (2008) – Art and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic
transition in Europe: comments on the archaeological argu-
ments for an Early Upper Palaeolithic antiquity of the Grotte
Chauvet art, Journal of Human Evolution, 55, p. 908-917.
Pettitt P., Bahn P., Züchner C. (2009) – The Chauvet
conundrum: are claims for the ‘birthplace of art’ prema-
ture?, in P. Bahn (ed.), An enquiring mind: studies in honour
of Alexander Marshack (American School of Prehistoric
Research Monograph series), Oxford and Cambridge, Ox-
bow, p. 239–262.
Pettitt P., Bahn P. (2015) – An alternative chronology for the
art of Chauvet cave, Antiquity, 85, 345, p. 542-553.
Pettitt P., Arias P., García-Diez M., Hoffmann D.,
Castillejo A. M., Ontañón-Peredo R., Pike A., Zilhao
J. (2015) – Are hand stencils in European cave art older than
we think? An evaluation of the existing data and their poten-
tial implications, in P. Bueno-Ramírez and P. Bahn (eds.),
Prehistoric Art as Prehistoric Culture Studies in Honour of
Professor Rodrigo de Balbín Behrmann, Oxford, Archaeo-
press Archaeology, p. 31-43.
Pigeaud R., Valladas H., Arnold M., Cachier H. (2003)
– Deux datations carbone 14 en spectrométrie de masse par
accélérateur (SMA) pour une représentation pariétale de la
grotte Mayenne-Sciences (Thorigné-en-Charnie, Mayenne),
émergence d’un art gravettien en France septentrionale ?,
Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2, 2, p. 161-168.
Pigeaud R., Rodet J., Deviese T., Betton J.-P., Bonic P.
(2006) – Palaeolithic Cave art in Northern Europe: an ex-
ceptional discovery, Antiquity, 80, 309, project gallery, p.
81-92.
Pigeaud R., Plagnes V., Bouchard M., Bahain J. J.,
Causse C., Demailly S., Falgueres C., Laval E., Noël
F., Rodet J., Valladas H., Walter P. (2010) – Analyses
archéométriques dans la grotte ornée Mayenne-Sciences
(Thorigné-en-Charnie, Mayenne), L’Anthropologie, 114, 1,
p. 97-112.
Pigeaud R., Hinguant S., Paitier H., Pommier V., Bonic
P., Berrouet F., Pinel M. D., Redou A. (2012) – La
grotte Margot (Thorigné-en-Charnie, Mayenne) : un sanc-
tuaire complexe aux inuences multiples, Préhistoire, arts
& sociétés, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique Ariège-
Pyrénées, tome LXVII, p. 81-101.
Pike A. W., Hoffmann D. L., García-Diez M., Pettitt P.
B., Alcolea J., De Balbín Behrmann R., González-
Sainz C., De Las Heras C., Lasheras J. A., Montes R.,
Zilhão J. (2012) – U-Series Dating of Paleolithic Art in 11
Caves in Spain, Science, 336, 6087, p. 1409-1413.
Pike A. W., Hoffmann D. L., Pettitt P. B., García-Diez
M., Zilhao J. (2017) – Dating Palaeolithic cave art: Why
U–Th is the way to go, Quaternary international, 432, p.
41-49.
Plassard F. (2005) – Les grottes ornées de Combarelles, Font-
de-Gaume, Bernifal et Rougnac, Contexte archéologique,
thèmes et style des représentations, doctoral thesis, Univer-
sity of Bordeaux, 413 p.
Plassard F. (2006) – Les grottes ornées de Combarelles,
Font-de-Gaume, Bernifal, et Rougnac, Contexte archéo-
logique, thèmes et style des représentations, Bulletin de la
Société préhistorique française, 103, 3, p. 618-621.
192
193
Back to the wall
Pons-Branchu E., Bourrillon R., Conkey M. W., Fontugne
M., Fritz C., Garate D., Quiles A., Rivero O.,
Sauvet G., Tosello G., Valladas H., White R. (2014) –
Uranium- series dating of carbonate formations overlying
Palaeolithic art; interest and limitations, Bulletin de la So-
ciété préhistorique française, 111, 2, p. 211-224.
Pumarejo P. (1989) – Consideraciones sobre la cueva de El
Pindal (Pimiango, Asturias), in Universidad de Zarago-
za (ed.), Crónica del XIX Congreso Arqueológico Nacio-
nal, Vol. 2, Madrid, Secretaría General de los Congresos
Arqueológicos Nacionales, p. 17-26.
Quiles A., Valladas H., Bocherens H., Delqué-Kolic
E., Kalnecker E., Van Der Plicht J., Delannoy
J. J., Feruglio V., Fritz C., Monney J., Philippe M.,
Clottes J., Geneste J.-M. (2016) – A high-precision
chronological model for the decorated Upper Paleolithic
cave of Chauvet-Pont d’Arc, Ardèche, France, Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 17, p.
4670-4675.
Reynolds N., Riede F. (2019) – House of cards: cultural
taxonomy and the study of the European Upper Palaeolithic,
Antiquity, 93, 371, p. 1350-1358.
Rivero O. (2014) – Vers une caractérisation du gisement mag-
dalénien d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) à travers sa pro-
duction artistique, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique fran-
çaise, 111, 2, p. 255-274.
Rivero O., Garate D. (2013) – Arte parietal paleolítico en la
cueva de Hornos de la Peña (Cantabria): nuevos datos sobre
su conjunto exterior, Zephyrus, 72, p. 59-72.
Rivero O., Sauvet G. (2014) – Dening Magdalenian cultur-
al groups in Franco-Cantabria from the formal analysis of
portable artworks, Antiquity, 88, 339, p. 64-80.
Rivero O., Garate D., Salazar S, Intxaurbe I. (2019) –
The Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian striated hinds on scap-
ulae: towards a new denition of a graphic morphotype,
Quaternary International, 506, p. 69-79.
Roussot A. (1984) – Grotte de Bernifal, in Collective (ed.),
L’art des cavernes, Atlas des grottes ornées paléolithiques
françaises, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, p. 170-174.
Ruiz-Redondo A. (2014) – Entre el Cantábrico y los
Pirineos: el conjunto de Altxerri en el contexto de la activi-
dad gráca magdaleniense, Santander, Nadir, 289 p.
Ruiz-Redondo A., Garate D. (2015) – Convenciones grá-
cas en el arte gurativo magdaleniense de la cornisa
cantábrica: el caso de la sierra del Cuera (Asturias), in M.
S. Corchón and M. Menéndez (eds.), Cien años de arte
rupestre paleolítico: congreso internacional centenario
de la cueva de La Peña de Candamo (Oviedo 3-5 julio
de 2014), Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, p. 143-
154.
Russell T. (2000) – The application of the Harris matrix to San
rock art at Main Caves North, North, Kwazulu-Natal, South
African Archaeological Bulletin, 55, p. 60-70.
Sadier B., Delannoy J.-J., Benedetti L., Bourlès D. L.,
Jaillet S., Geneste J.-M., Lebatard A. I., Arnold
M. (2012) – Further constraints on the Chauvet cave art-
work elaboration, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 109, 21, p. 8002-8006.
Salazar S., Garate D., Intxaurbe I., Rivero O., Moreno
J. (2019) – An unknown ‘classic cave’: Re-evaluation of El
Salitre (Ajanedo, Cantabria, Spain) rock art with 3D digital
recording methodologies, Journal of Archaeological Sci-
ence, Reports, 26, 101921.
Sanchidrián J. L., Márquez A. M., Valladas H., Tis-Nerat,
N. (2001) – Dates directes pour l’art rupestre d’Andalousie
(Espagne), International Newsletter on Rock Art, 29, p. 15-19.
Sauvet G. (2004) – Langage préhistorique, langages de préhis-
toriens, in F. Audouze and N. Schlanger (eds.) – Autour
de Leroi-Gourhan: contexte et actualité d’André Leroi-
Gourhan, Antibes Éd. ADPCA, p. 249-270.
Sauvet G. (2007) – La grotte ornée magdalénienne de Bédeil-
hac, Les Dossiers d’archéologie (Dijon), 324, p. 54-61.
Sauvet G. (2015) – Una nueva gura roja en la cueva de El
Buxu (Cangas de Onís, Asturias), Zephyrvs, 75, p. 165-172.
Sauvet G., Fritz C., Tosello G. (2008) – Emergence et ex-
pansion de l’art aurignacien, Bulletin de la Société préhisto-
rique Ariège-Pyrénées, 63, 3, p. 33-46.
Sauvet G., Rivero O. (2016) – D’un support à l’autre : l’art
pariétal à la lumière de l’art mobilier, in J. J. Cleyet-Merle,
J.-M. Geneste and E. Man-Estier (eds.), L’art au quotidien
– Objets ornés du Paléolithique supérieur, Actes du Col-
loque International Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, 16-20 juin 2014,
PALEO, Numéro spécial (2016), p. 133-147.
Sauvet G., Bourrillon R., Conkey M., Fritz C., Garate
D., Rivero O., Tosello G., White R. (2017) – Uranium-
thorium dating method and Palaeolithic rock art, Quater-
nary International, 432, p. 86-92.
Slimak L., Fietzke J., Geneste J. M., Ontañón R. (2018) –
Comment on ‘U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals
Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art’, Science, 361, 6408,
p. 1371.
Standish C. D., García-Diez M., O’connor S., Oliveira N.
V. (2020) – Hand stencil discoveries at Lene Hara Cave hint
at Pleistocene age for the earliest painted art in Timor-Leste,
Archaeological Research in Asia, 100191.
Tosello G., Fritz, C. (2005) – Les dessins noirs de la grotte
Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc : essai sur leur originalité dans le site
et leur place dans l’art aurignacien, Bulletin de la Société
préhistorique française, 102, 1, p. 159-171.
Tosello G., Fritz C., Sauvet G. (2005) – Découverte
d’une nouvelle gure dans la grotte supérieure de Gargas
(Hautes-Pyrénées), Bulletin de la Société préhistorique
Ariège-Pyrénées, 60, p. 45-51.
Utrilla P. (1994) – Campamentos-base, cazaderos y santua-
rios. Algunos ejemplos del paleolítico penínsular, in J. A.
Lasheras (ed.), Homenaje al Dr. J. González Echegaray,
Madrid, Ministerio de Cultura and Museo y Centro de In-
vestigación de Altamira (Monografía 17), p. 97-113.
Utrilla P., Martínez-Bea, M. (2008) – Sanctuaires rupestres
comme marqueurs d’identité territoriale : sites d’agrégation et
animaux « sacrés », Préhistoire, art et sociétés, 63, 109-133.
Valladas H., Cachier H., Arnold M. (1993) – New radio-
carbon dates for prehistoric cave paintings at Cougnac, in
M. Lorblanchet and P. Bahn (eds.), Rock art studies: the
post-stylistic era or where do we go from there?, Oxford,
Oxbow (Oxbow monograph 35), p. 74-76.
194 Diego Garate, Olivia Rivero, Iñaki Intxaurbe and Lucía M. Díaz-González
Valladas H., Tisnérat-Laborde N., Cachier H., Arnold
M., Bernaldo De Quirós F., Cabrera-Valdés V.,
Clottes J., Courtin J., Fortea-Pérez J., Gonzáles
Sainz C., Moure-Romanillo A. (2001) – Radiocarbon
AMS dates for Paleolithic cave paintings, Radiocarbon, 43,
2B, p. 977-986.
Valladas H., Kaltnecker E., Quiles A., Tisnérat-Labor-
de N., Genty D., Arnold M., Delqué-Kolic E., Moreau
C., Bafer D., Cleyet-Merle J. J., Clottes J., Girad
M., Monney J., Montes R., Sainz C., Sanchidrián
J. L., Simonnet R. (2013) – Dating French and Spanish
prehistoric decorated caves in their archaeological contexts,
Radiocarbon, 55, 2-3, p. 1422-1431.
Valladas H., Quiles A., Delque-Kolic M., Kaltnecker E.,
Moreau C., Pons-Branchu E., Vanrell L., Olive M.,
Delestre X. (2017) – Radiocarbon dating of the decorated
Cosquer cave (France), Radiocarbon, 59, 2, p. 621-633.
Villaverde V. (1994) – Arte paleolítico de la Cova del Par-
palló. Estudio de la colección de plaquetas y cantos gra-
bados y pintados, Valencia, Servicio de Investigación Pre-
histórica, Diputación provincial de Valencia, 800 p.
Vogels O., Fäder E., Lenssen-Erz T. (2020) – A matter
of diversity? Identifying past hunter-gatherer aggregation
camps through data driven analyses of rock art sites, Qua-
ternary International, 572, p. 151-165, doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.05.057.
White R., Bosinski G., Bourrillon R., Clottes J., Con-
key M. W., Corchón S., Cortés-Sánchez M., De
La Rasilla M., Delluc B., Delluc G., Feruglio V.,
Floss H., Foucher P., Fritz C., Fuentes O., Garate
D., González J., González-Morales M., González-
Pumariega M., Groenen M., Jaubert J., Martinez-
Aguirre M. A., Medina Alcaide M.A., Moro O.,
Ontañón R., Paillet-Man-Estier E., Paillet E.,
Petrognani E., Pigeaud R., Pinçon G., Plassard F.,
Ripoll S., Rivero O., Robert E., Ruiz-Redondo A.,
Ruiz J. F., San Juan-Foucher C., Sanchidrián J. L.,
Sauvet G., Simón-Vallejo M. D., Tosello G., Utrilla
P., Vialou D., Willis M. D. (2019) – Still no archaeolog-
ical evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art,
Journal of Human Evolution, 144, doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.102640.
Zilhão J. (2007) – The Emergence of Ornaments and Art: An
Archaeological Perspective on the Origins of ‘Behavioral
Modernity’, Journal of Archaeological Research, 15, p. 1-54.
Züchner C. (1996) – La Grotte Chauvet : radiocarbone contre ar-
chéologie, International Newsletter on Rock Art, 13, p. 25-27.
Diego Garate
Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones
Prehistóricas de Cantabria
(IIIPC, Gobierno de Cantabria, Universidad de
Cantabria, Santander) , Edicio Interfacultativo,
Avda. Los Castros s/n., 39005 Santander, Spain
diego.garate@unican.es
Olivia Rivero
Departamento de Prehistoria,
Historia Antigua y Arqueología
Universidad de Salamanca
Cervantes s/n, 37002 Salamanca, Spain
oliviariver@usal.es
Iñaki Intxaurbe
Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones
Prehistóricas de Cantabria (IIIPC, Gobierno de
Cantabria, Universidad de Cantabria,
Santander), Edicio Interfacultativo,
Avda. Los Castros s/n., 39005 Santander, Spain
Departamento de Geología. Universidad del
País Vasco. Barrio Sarriena s/n,
48940 Leioa, Spain.
inaki.intxaurbe@ehu.eus
Lucía M. Díaz-González
Museo Nacional y Centro de
Investigación de Altamira
Avenida Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola s/n,
39330 Santillana del Mar, Spain
lucia.diaz@cultura.gob.es
